[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." - Chairman Mao
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


File: 1652557465416.jpg (83.05 KB, 992x744, ar-15s.jpg)

 No.1824

Is an AR-15 the best rifle to get if you're looking to arm yourself? I know it's incredibly popular in the US, but I'm not sure how much of that is just people trying to operator larp.

Pros:
- Cheap ammo
- Ample parts
- Easy to use

Cons:
- Complex
- Low powered round
- High-profile sights

 No.1837

it werks

 No.1838

They are mass-produced with a huge aftermarket and a very good value for what it is. $500 on average. Inexpensive easy to find ammo. I think they're just a little boring and they're not really ideal for home defense or any sort of hunting.

A good alternative might be a C308 if you want something bigger. Or go with a 12ga pump action or hi-point carbine if you're broke and mainly concerned with home defense. I'm a cheap bastard and thus biased toward gud/cheep.

 No.1840

File: 1652812480249.png (3.94 MB, 1500x1125, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1824
>Is an AR-15 the best rifle to get if you're looking to arm yourself?
Yeah probably. Most amount of manufacturers. I think more important is deciding what caliber you're going to use and you should use a cheap caliber for you to stockpile. You can get AK style guns in 5.56 if that's your preferred style. The only major advantage to the AR would be more compatible hardware and magazines.

I'm personally a fan of G3 style weapons. They're basically only one company that makes them in The US and I heard their recent batches had shit quality control. So yeah it's mostly on the manufacturer and also how good the batch was as well.

 No.1841

>>1824
Ammo availability is the most important factor. Your fancy gun is just a piece of metal without bullets. Alway think about logistics in military matters.

 No.1842

File: 1652812600277.png (14.55 MB, 4032x3024, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1838
>A good alternative might be a C308 if you want something bigger.
King. But you can also get ARs in 308.

 No.1844

>>1842
Basic AR-10 is like $1,500 though. C308 is half that price and a true block stamped sheet metal weapon of the proletariat. They look badass also. Downside is C308s are basically refurbished service weapons and the design isn't especially accurate.

 No.1845

File: 1652829362361.png (699.66 KB, 1100x1100, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1844
>Downside is C308s are basically refurbished service weapons and the
Service for who? Police? They're civilian models of the G3. You can also do a PTR build in 308.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ptr-91-vs-cetme-significant-differences.221533/
>In terms of build quality, the PTR is a few floors up. The PTRs, however, are much closer to being brand new guns than the CETMEs. The PTR receivers are built on former FMP machinery licensed by HK. The CETME receivers are built by some privateers.

>If you are just looking for something to shoot with, the CETMEs could be the way to go, provided you find one that works (as noted by others, some have not functioned well) and don't mind the unrefined build quality and upside down safety. The two CETMEs I have have worked fine. The PTR also the same.


You can also convert it to the famous PSG1 more or less.

https://www.hkpro.com/threads/hk-91-to-psg-1-conversion.101115/

>really????? talk to some urbach PSG-1 owners see what kinda groups their getting. your right in the fact that it will NEVER actually be a PSG-1. but if i can get the same or better performance with the look of one for 6000$ less i think i'll go with that. and all the ones i've seen go up for sale that dont sell within 3 days are all built by some guy who thought a hesse or a federal arms receiver was just the coolest thing they have ever seen.


>Exactly. I met a guy at Urbach's one day with one of his PSG1s. Urbach uses I think Doublass barrel blanks, and machines the PSG1 profile on them. That guy gets sub .5 MOA groups with it, and he had some of the targets in his truck. The best group was about .28" center to center. It's as much a PSG1 as all of the MP5s made from HK94s and HK53s made from HK93s. No, it's not an actual PSG1, but can shoot better than an actual PSG1.

 No.1846

>>1841
If you are concerned about combat effectiveness then you are gonna wanna read up on shit like homemade explosives and artillery, although rifles are still very important for guerilla warfare. I am going to make a thread on suppresed and even "silent" guns as well a .22 is a good investment. 5.56 is a decent round which is pretty cheap and available in North America, look into reloading as well.

 No.1847

>>1838
Serious question: What's the point in getting a semi-auto rifle in a full caliber rifle round? Just for fun/aesthetics?

 No.1851

>>1847
I don't get what you are saying. So you have a rifle caliber. What are you suggesting? Pistol caliber? Pistols only have an advantage of less overpenetration.

 No.1855

>>1847
It will definitely fuck on whatever armor anyone is wearing, which I think is something to genuinely keep in mind when America has just had a shooting where the shooter wore armor to specifically counter the local security, and I do think armor will only become more commonplace with time. Rip your shoulder though.
>>1851
I think he wants to know what the modern purpose of something like an SVT-40 would be

 No.1859

Embedding error.
>>1855
Oh well even the army has abandoned 5.56 now. They sized up to 6.8-millimeter (. 277-caliber)

.308 just donks better.

>Rip your shoulder though.

Only if you are a weakling.

 No.1864

>>1859
China are also swapping to 6.8 iirc, wonder how long it will take for it and the new armor to become so prolific they swap back to 7.62

 No.1871

>>1851
>>1855
I meant full caliber rifle cartridge like .308 or 7.62x51. I don't see any point in using like a battle rifle unless you just happen to like that gun, although most models will be available in an intermediary chambering like 5.56 or 7.62x39.
>It will definitely fuck on whatever armor anyone is wearing, which I think is something to genuinely keep in mind when America has just had a shooting where the shooter wore armor to specifically counter the local security, and I do think armor will only become more commonplace with time
Armour piercing 5.56 or 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 etc will penetrate almost all armour sufficiently. Just as well or possibly better than a full sized rifle cartridge as far as I know. The only thing that would pen better would be like .30-06 (7.62x63) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield which is an armour level (IV) higher than 5.56/7.62x39 steel core is rated for
>Rip your shoulder though.
Yes that is one of the many reasons that full caliber rifle cartridges were abandoned

 No.1873

>>1859
>Oh well even the army has abandoned 5.56 now. They sized up to 6.8-millimeter (. 277-caliber)
Most of their rifles and most newly developed guns are in 5.56. IMO the 6.8 thing is some MIC scheme to get to sell new everything. Even on the 6.8 prototypes they use now with the wax caseless ammunition, the recoil is much worse than with 5.56
>.308 just donks better.
5.56 and 5.45 both have just as much wounding and lethality potential as .308 as far as I am aware and both will fly flatter and longer, and more accurately with far less recoil and a smaller and lighter cartridge that enables the carrying of much more ammunition for the same weight. This is especially true of the 5.45x39 which IMO is one of the best cartridges available today and if you live in Eastern Europe you can get it for dirt cheap. It's restriced in the US because it's just way to competitive with 5.56x45
>>Rip your shoulder though.
>Only if you are a weakling.
The recoil makes it much less accurate and harder to train and shoot with

 No.1875

>>1864
7.62 has the same or worse armour penetration and other characteristics as 5.45x39 or what China is reporting about some of their rounds, which they claim offer better ballistics to 5.45x39 Soviet/Russian

 No.1880

>>1871
>>1875
My bad I wasn't clear enough, I was referring to the 7.62×54mmR because of the references to full sized rifle calibre semiautos, which made the SVT-40 spring to mind. The armor penetration on that one is good isn't it?

 No.1881

>>1873
>5.56 and 5.45 both have just as much wounding and lethality potential as .308
Nah I agree with you. I would do 5.56 as my main rifle. Another plus is it's cheaper than .308 I think. .308 is good because it can double as a hunting rifle for large game. But for a human sized target 5.56 is more than enough.

 No.1882

>>1880
People here confuse broad logistics based military decisions of generals vs what you have can work with.

.308 isn't good at penetration of armor it has mediocre velocity and sectional density. It won't defeat level III steel plates that say, .220 Swift which will blow right through with a 47gr bullet.

What all the battle-rifle armed latam armies have in abundance that you don't is SLAP ammo because it's banned.

 No.1905

File: 1652932910825.gif (397.5 KB, 245x138, 1414754459582.gif)

>5.56 and 5.45 both have just as much wounding and lethality potential as .308

 No.1915

>>1905
5.56x45 NATO has perhaps slightly less wounding power than 7.62x51 NATO rounds of similar properties, like fmj to fmj. They both will reliably incapacitate and kill with a well placed shot at this range. 7.62x51 is perhaps significantly more lethal after 300 metres when many 5.56 rounds lose enough energy to not expand or fragment properly. Modern 5.45x39 Soviet/Russian is more lethal than comparable 5.56 rounds (fmj-fmj etc.). 5.45x39 also retains more energy at greater ranges than 5.56x45. 5.45x39 would carry sufficient energy and accuracy at the ranges you would normally use a 7.62x51 rifle, e.g. 800 metres.

 No.1999

>>1824
use AK-47 so u can larp as a commie or insurgent

 No.2025

>>1824
The AR-15
>is cheap
>works
>is durable to the point of ridiculousness

I bought a cheapass m&p15 after learning that it was cheap enough for kyle rittenhouse to buy one with his stimmy check, and it has never once jammed after more than 3,000 rounds running shitty russian steel case ammo

 No.2040

File: 1653948699128-0.png (96.19 KB, 519x370, 1457629995288.png)

File: 1653948699128-1.gif (349.89 KB, 220x134, loltali.gif)

>>1915
>5.45x39 also retains more energy at greater ranges than 5.56x45. 5.45x39 would carry sufficient energy and accuracy at the ranges you would normally use a 7.62x51 rifle, e.g. 800 metres.
I don't have a single reaction image to encompass my reaction to this ridiculous quote, so you get two.

 No.2041

File: 1653951552907.png (46.24 KB, 908x644, Untitled.png)

>>1915
>>2040
Now, lest I be labeled as a guy just making fun of you for no reason, let me back it up with numbers. The attached chart shows the energy of 5.56x45, 5.45x39, and 7.62x51 at various ranges, fired out of the most common barrel lengths they see in actual combat (5.56 out of a 14.5" barrel, 5.45 out of a 16.3" barrel, and 7.62 out of a 22" barrel).

At no point does 5.45x39 outpace 5.56x45 in terms of energy, and neither are going to be doing serious damage at 800yds (though they'll all kill you if they hit you in the heart or head).

 No.2042

File: 1653952949555.png (48.56 KB, 910x611, Untitled.png)

>>2041
Even at long range the ballistic performance is nearly identical, with 5.45 having only 3 fewer inches of drop at 1,000 yards (assuming a zero at 100yds). That's a difference of only 0.29 MOA, meaning that you could use an ACOG on a 5.45x39 rifle and only need to change the trajectory by one click upwards, and even then only if you're shooting at 800yds or more.

The people that claim that 5.45x39 is a glorious super-cartridge passed down from on high are just uninformed slavaboos. It's just 5.56 NATO 2: Eastern Boogaloo.

 No.2051

fuck all this stupid nonsense. ak or ar.
just pick one.
holy shit. they virtually do the same thing.
you can trick out an ar into a nice precision rig, assuming you have the funds for expensive parts, optics, ammo, and all the auxiliary equipment that goes into precision shooting. all in all, way too much time and money investment for it to be tenable for the average joe.
a nice pre-built from bcm or the like, with sling, weapon light and lpvo or red dot depending on your locale is all you need.
get one rifle and one pistol (glock 19) and just learn how to use it well.

 No.2052

>>2051
alright, let's see who on leftypol is actually hazguns and who is just fronting. ar thread so let's start with a build list. here's my main squeeze. just an ar-15 with a few simple mods

knight's armament sr-15 lower
vltor MUR upper
rainier arms stainless steel match barrel
16" mid-length
vltor a5h2 and sprinco green spring
magpul miad
geissele mk14 rail black
railscales g10 grips
arisaka fingerstop
streamlight hl-x with cloud defensive tape switch mount
kahles k16i 3gr reticle
arisaka offset mount
sig romeo 5
triggertech adjustable
magpul ubr gen 2 black

 No.2053

>>2052
derp forgot the bcm fde bcg. heart of the rifle lmao

 No.2054

>>2052
>sr-15 lower
Where the hell do you even get sr-15 bits nowadays? I'm trying to get a 14.5" or 11.5" upper, and I'm at a loss where to look if I don't want to spend 3k on one from a scalper on fuddbroker.

 No.2055

>>2054
I'm a Canuck, wouldn't know. It's impossible up here save for.some.boutique shops that go out of their way for super limited releases. I got mine from Gun Gear or something. Kac overrated anyway. LMT is better.

 No.2077

>>2052
poverty pony lower with a build kit from cera-tac

 No.2466

>>2042
>>2041
>>2040
absolutely fucking bodied

 No.2471


 No.2472

File: 1664603580005-1.png (39.49 KB, 785x450, jPcC66z.png)

>>2040
>>2041
Hey buddy. Where are you getting these graphs from and what rounds are being compared and from what barrel lengths? Out of an 18 inch barrel 55 grain 5.56x45 NATO will go subsonic at about 550 yards but 55 grain 5.45x39 will only go subsonic at about 850 yards. You should see a major drop in the rounds at these ranges unlike this weird linear graph. If you know anything about ballistics you will know that as a round drops below the speed of sound it will lose stability and begin to wobble, greatly decreasing accuracy. The 55 grain 5.56 NATO round will also begin to drop bellow the 5.45x39 within a couple hundred yards and will reduce in initial energy to that of the 5.45x39 within 300 yards. This is an issue for the 5.56 NATO, as it is designed to fragment as it's main wounding effect and within a specific high speed, beyond that speed it's effectivness is greatly reduced. Most formulations of the 5.45x39 on the other hand have a hollow or soft cavity in the nose that causes the steel insert to project outwards and expand in soft tissue and the bullet has a unique tumbling effect in soft tissue that causes the bullet to "swim" laterally, causing massive tissue damage without relying on fragmentation necessarily, althouth it is a secondary effect. What this means practically is that the 5.45x39 round is more effective in tissue at ranges beyond 300 metres. However the 5.45x39 round also remains more rigid penetrating hard surfaces and has greater armour penetrating capabilites when comparing standard soft and improved penetration cartridges (e.g. 7N6M, 7N39) to their 5.56 NATO peers. The 5.45x39 round also has only about 40 percent of the recoil of the 5.56 NATO round and reduced muzzle flash and sound signature. This is in part due to the powder in the 5.45x39 round burning more evenly and fully than the 5.56 NATO round's burn which tends to fluctuate and will often not accelerate completely before exiting the barrel, particularly in shorter barrels. This is remedied somewhat by using barrels with an extended length, but a rifle with a 22 inch barrel is going to be a lot more cumbersome than one with a 16 or 14 inch barrel. The 5.45x39 round retains much of the same range and velocity at very short barrel lengths and is even effective in the 7.87 inch barreled aks74u "submachine gun" out to about 400 or 500 metres. The main reason for the discrepancy in ballistic performance however is that the 5.45x39 round is longer and more aerodynamic. I won't get into specific ballistic coefficients since it varies so much between rounds. The 5.56 NATO round is packed with more powder and starts with an initial velocity and energy higher than that of the 5.45x39 but it quickly stalls and falls behind, due to drag and a less stable flight path. When comparing rounds it is important to compare older and lighter rounds to each other like 7n6 5.45x39 to m193 Ball 5.56 NATO and newer and heavier to each other like the hardened steel 7n35 5.45x39 round to the M855A1 EPR 5.56x45 Round. Although even in this graph here the old 7n6 5.45x39 round, which is the main round commercially available to civilians in America until it was replaced by commercial variants after the ban, is compared to the relatively modern m855 5.56 NATO round. The 7n6 came out in the early 70s and has been improved several times since, the m855 round rolled out in the 80s and was the most modern round in use by NATO forces up until 2010 when they started rolling out the Enhanced Penetration Round, which is a bit harder. As you can see, the 5.45x39 round drops much slower than the 5.56 NATO, and this is not considering barrel length, which the NATO round is much more sensitive to.

Here in the second pic also is the energy of the old and modern NATO rounds compared with the old early 70s 7n6 5.45x39, as well as some other rounds out of a short 10.5 inch barrel. As you can see the 7n6 quickly surpasses the old m193 ball and quickly catches up to the modern m855 within 300 metres. I will remind you again that the the 5.56 NATO round is more sensitive to drops in energy and velocity for fragmentation and barrier penetration than the 5.45x39 round. To be fair to 5.56 NATO it requires a longer barrel than the 5.45x39 for adequate effect, however even with longer barrels the 5.45x39 gradually or quickly will close the gap and maintains accuracy and lethality at longer ranges.

 No.2473

>>2466
do you think condescension means competency or are you just samefagging?

 No.2474

>>2472
I meant to also mention:
That being said 5.56 NATO is more widely available and in more modern chanberings, and usually cheaper than 5.45x39 Soviet. If you live in America and don't want to spend months or years and 10s of thousands of dollars fucking around and producing your own ammunition to milspec then go with 5.56 NATO. If you live somewhere with good access to Soviet surplus or Russian ammo then go with that.

 No.2488

get a bolt action
less restricted, they're the basis for every rifle cartridge anyways, and they cycle about as fast as a semi-auto as long as it's not complete dogshit and you practice it

 No.2489

>>2488
>and they cycle about as fast as a semi-auto
Lol no. WTF are you smoking?

 No.2490

File: 1664954766527-0.png (1.17 MB, 703x1863, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1664954766527-1.png (53.1 KB, 275x183, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2489
Not to mention you can easily convert a semi auto to full auto.

 No.2493

>>2489
wow, you can miss quicker
also that looks like an ar-18

 No.2494

>>2493
Bruh the name is right in the thumbnail. It's a civ version of the HK G3.

 No.2495

>>2490
The fact that these mods are highly illegal seems to be effective, most mass shooters don't even use anything like this.

 No.2496

>>2495
The glock drop in is fairly common among gangbangers. Apprarently you can get those on Alibaba lol.

 No.2497

>>2496
>>2495
Oh yeah of course, highscore man used bump stocks. Of course they got banned because of him, but I'm sure they're pretty brain dead simple to 3d print. Also you can bumpfire without a bumpstock. I don't know what's more reliable or useful, bumpstock or a trigger group mod because I have 0 experience with either. Still should be pretty easy to mod a semi to full from my knowledge.

 No.2512

File: 1665187289827-0.mp4 (5.92 MB, 720x1146, hE5KRLRPIz-cgGAN.mp4)

File: 1665187289827-1.mp4 (1.26 MB, 576x1280, uNlu841hdcpeBUOM.mp4)

switched glock

 No.2513

if you're an american and want the most practical rifle to arm yourself with then yes, buy an AR-15.

if you're not american or dont care about practicality then go hog wild homie. i would still suggest 5.56 and something that takes STANAG mags just to save yourself some headaches but you do you.

 No.2517

>>2512
As a pistol, but why?
You mag dump and then???

 No.2518

File: 1665202784187.png (43.75 KB, 474x580, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2517
You can have drum mags for the glock. Full auto is just kinda dumb regardless. Why they invented 3 round burst. Full auto is only really good for belt fed shit.

 No.2524

File: 1665357459386-0.png (307.82 KB, 634x368, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1665357459386-1.png (1002.95 KB, 685x849, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2523
>To my knowledge, no firearm round was designed with fragmentation as the primary wounding effect.

 No.2525

>>2523
So I will make a longpost debunking your claims here when it suits me after reading your post it's clear that long story short you don't know what you are talking about. You clearly are quite immature and insecure that you feel the need to quickly google keywords I mention in my posts and pull some shit out of your ass to "debunk" it. Maybe instead you should shut your mouth and learn something? Try and have a polite adult conversation where you can learn something for once? The frustrating thing about people talking out of their ass stubbornly isn't their obdurate nature, that's a you problem. The annoying part that compels me to write a reply is that you are not only wasting my time, but the time of every person reading this thread. And unless fallacies are pointed out they may continue to mislead other people, people that I consider my comrades. In respect to the thread topic and original point of contention, I am not interested in a pissing contest or you trying to prove something to yourself to protect your ego. The only interesting topic of discussion here is about the comparison of different calibers.

 No.2527

i wonder how much people who nitpick over ballistics or whatever are prepared for an actual firefight

 No.2528

>>2526
>AK platform itself is trash.
Not much of a gun nerd but how is the AK platform can be considered trash ?.

 No.2529

>>1824
"low powered round" - m855a1 rips through a ton of body armor like tissue paper.
"high profile sights" - only if you're running an A2 clone

 No.2530

File: 1665493317896-0.png (1.12 MB, 1024x680, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1665493317896-1.png (254.33 KB, 582x301, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1665493317896-2.png (1.08 MB, 1200x675, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1665493317896-3.png (942.4 KB, 2048x1365, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2528
The AK is inferior to the AR in a number of features:

* Mounting optics and red dots - ARs have a solid upper which allows optics to be mounted on them. AKs have a sheet metal dust cover instead of an upper, which an optic could not be mounted to. So AK users either have to put on a clunky side rail mount or replace the dust cover with a solid upper, which increases the weight of the AK even further (it's already typically heavier than an AR). Furthermore an optic mounted on an AK may need to be re-zerod every time you clean the gun, as you have to remove the dust cover, and hence the optic mounting platform, to access the internals. This has the potential to change the zero of the weapon hence the need to re-zero. An AR is opened by pivoting at the middle (pic 1) which keeps the barrel and optic attached to the same piece of metal, and therefore does not change the zero.

* Reloading - AR's are reloaded by sliding the magazine into the magazine well and pressing the bolt release button, which releases the bolt and chambers the round (assuming the bolt was back, if not, you would pull the charging handle instead). AK's are reloaded by hooking the magazine by the front, and then rocking the rear of the magazine in. AK's don't have a bolt release so you must charge the weapon every time you reload, furthermore, the charging handle is on the right side of the gun which means you have to reach over or under the gun with your off hand to charge it. This process is slower and more difficult under stress or in a space-limited environment than the AR reload.

* Safety - The AK safety is the part on the right of the gun right behind the charging handle (pic 2). It is theoretically supposed to be actuated by the trigger finger, in reality this is a very awkward movement which requires the user to shift their right hand grip. Custom AK safeties mitigate this somewhat by extending the "ledge" you're supposed to actuate with your finger. In contrast, the AR safety (pic 3) is easily toggled with the thumb of the right hand without changing grip or taking your finger out of the trigger area, and they even make 45 degree selectors which are even faster, although this isn't necessary for it to be much better than the AK safety.

* Price - AK's are more expensive than AR's, for the same quality of firearm. A PSA AR can be purchased for ~$600, and will meet or exceed the quality of most surplus AK's, all of which will cost at least twice as much. Non-surplus AK's are similar AFAIK.

* Ammunition - You're either running a 7.62x39 AK or a 5.45x39 AK. Both are much less widespread in the US than 5.56. Combloc surplus is unreliable, being about 40 years old by now. So you're not getting a deal on that. 5.45 is ballistically similar to 5.56 except 5.56 has a ton of recent development - see rounds like M855A1 (recent military 5.56 round which does very well against armor and barriers) and Mk 262 (a heavier 77 grain round known for accuracy and consistency). 5.56 is also more available.
7.62x39 is pretty shit compared to 5.56 except in short barrels where the faster powder burn helps it achieve good velocity in a shorter package. The downside of this faster burn rate is greater recoil. One might be tempted to assume that the 7.62 would be superior in a suppressed application, except:

* Suppression - The long stroke gas piston design of the AK tends to vent a lot of gas backwards when supressed. The AR design keeps it mostly contained, whether using direct impingement or a short-stroke gas piston (eg HK416). This means it's going to keep farting sprays of gas into your face and eyes with every shot which is annoying. AK barrels use a different thread pattern than ARs and, as one might expect, AR threaded suppressors are much more common and hence affordable.

* Magazines - the AR magazine is less curved than the AK magazine due to the less angular shape of the 5.56 round. This makes the mags easier to fit in a plate carrier and generally more conveniant.

* Foregrip - Most modern ARs will have M-LOK foregrips (front of pic 4) which are light, disperse heat from the barrel well, and allow for convenient mounting of a weapon light. You can also get AK M-LOK foregrips but, due to the increased diameter of the AK gas tube(because it has a piston inside), they tend to heat up a lot. It's a known quirk of the AK platform that the foregrips heat up a lot and you will see a lot of AK users wearing a glove on the left hand to deal with the foregrip heat issue.

Pretty much the only solid advantage of the AK platform is that it's easier to put a folding stock on it, but folding stocks are legally finicky in the US anyways, unless you register the weapon as an SBR.

This is by no means exhaustive, but it should give you an idea of the many flaws of the AK platform in the modern day. It was a fine rifle in its time, but the AR turned out to be more modular in the ways that mattered as time went on.

 No.2531

File: 1665493784266-0.png (842.81 KB, 700x500, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1665493784266-1.png (1.76 MB, 1200x800, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2530
Forgot to add - this is what an AK side rail mount looks like vs. an AR. Not hard to figure out which is the hack

 No.2532

>>1859
>>1873
.308 gives you very little against armor that 5.56 doesn't. M80A1 and M855A1 penetrate the same armor and don't penetrate the same armor, for the most part. UHMWPE = penetration. Ceramic = no penetration. Of course there are niche cases where the M80A1 will penetrate and M855A1 won't but for the most part it all the same boat.

In light of this, I would argue that 5.56 is more effective against armor, because both are stopped by plates but the follow up shot is faster with 5.56.

 No.2533

File: 1665506152954.png (650.64 KB, 700x420, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2530
Over half of this post is pure burger shit or a criticism of an AK being used today in the USA from the perspective of ammunition, maintenance and add-on features. No shit AKs are more expensive in the USA, the home of AR. No shit combloc ammo and optics are going to be more expensive - they're not native/allied products. No shit they're more common, it's literally the product of the country, compared to an import/specialty item.
>combloc stockpile bad because old
Ammunition stored since WW2 still gets used to this day from their stockpiles, part of the reason they sealed cans of ammunition to prevent corrosion and degradation over the decades.
>Suppressor
Suppressing an AK or AR isn´t a deal breaker. Your statements are reasons the AK is harder to suppress. This is mostly idiotic since the AK isn't designed to be a suppressed weapon, it's designed to be an assault rifle capable of engaging from 800 meters to close range in all sorts of combat, and it does. As for the gas "farting" out. LMFAO That's not how AK gas-release functions. If anything its projected forward through the gas tube and from the ejection site. This is a good 15-20cm from your eyes depending on model.
>7.62x39 is pretty shit compared to 5.56
No. It's different than the 5.56, but it's not shit in any capacity. The reason the AK changed ammunition to 5.45 is multiple
A - Wounding over Penetration. The 5.45 had been designed specifically to cause maximum damage to the point of having a feared reputation among the Mujaheds. The base 7.62 can till penetrate STANAG level II armor. The armor piercing and incendiary stuff can go through level III.
B - More accurate on semi and full automatic at length.
C - It was cheaper to produce
D - Ergonomics - smaller size = more ammunition available for the same weight.
E - Faster ammunition and gas pressure (important for those suppressors) that mitigated loss of penetration due to size.
etc.
>5.56 has newer more penetrative ammo
yippee, so does the 5.45 (7N39 - 2013).
>this is a very awkward movement which requires the user to shift their right hand grip
It isn't, you're just fat-fingered. Basic trigger discipline means you keep your finger off the trigger, usually right below that lever. A mere raising or lowering of the finger shifts it. On the AR it's about the same ease in flipping it, though the button is smaller. You're just used to ARs.
>sidemount scopes
<pic is some shitty commercial thing
That's not how scopes look like in military or professional AKs. Pic 1 is a military grade mounting for the AK-74. Tight and compact.
>the charging handle is on the right side of the gun which means you have to reach over or under the gun with your off hand to charge it
No, idiot. That's because you're used to ARs and American operating. You don't use your off-hand to pull an AK-charging handle, you use the arm that's going to pull the trigger
A) because this prevents accidentally squeezing off a round or an accidental discharge
B) because you shouldn't be firing anything if you're pulling a charging handle, so keeping your finger on the trigger isn't going to be any use.
>This process is slower and more difficult under stress or in a space-limited environment than the AR reload.
LMAO no it isn't. The AR is marginally faster by a second in the hands of a skilled operator, this doesn't matter in real life, it's not a machine gun, so constant fire isn't the purpose of an assault rifle. Not to mention that this takes training for both rifles, but for an Ak this takes much less time; The AK can be taken apart entirely and put back together in seconds by someone that has practice and can be taught to literal children in the space of a couple days, if not a single day. Also AK mags lend themselves to jungle-magging better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyPhgl1Ab-8
>magazine curve
The AR magazine also carries less ammunition, and the larger mag is just as unwieldy and forces you to reload more, so if you're going to make the sustained fire argument for the magazine reload time, then having the magazine need reloading at all is important. Not to mention AKs are better for Casket and box mags.
>foregrips
Neither a deal-breaker nor a big issue, people are supposed to use gloves regardless of fore-grip, and again this is an issue of sustained, long-term fire. The AK isn't going significantly heat up from firing even a single or 2 mags, it takes some time for it to build up and depends on the furnishings.

So overall nothing you're saying proves the AK is a bad platform, your "modular" argument utterly ignores modern AKs and uses poor commercial variants as examples and then bringing up military+ specs for the AR. Your main criticisms regard AKs for commercial use in the United States, if your position had been from that angle, I'd probably agree on most points here.

 No.2534

>>2533
>Over half of this post is pure burger shit or a criticism of an AK being used today in the USA from the perspective of ammunition, maintenance and add-on features.
That's the purpose of the thread. No one cares about some fantasy comparison where real-world factors such as cost are not taken into comparison. If we wanted to compare guns in a bubble, the "ideal gun" would probably be some kind of fancy 6.5mm polymer cased round. That conclusion doesn't help us at all.

>Suppressing an AK or AR isn´t a deal breaker. Your statements are reasons the AK is harder to suppress. This is mostly idiotic since the AK isn't designed to be a suppressed weapon, it's designed to be an assault rifle capable of engaging from 800 meters to close range in all sorts of combat, and it does.

Suppressors matter on assault rifles especially in night operations. Firing signature matters.

>No. It's different than the 5.56, but it's not shit in any capacity.

Russia switched to a 5.56-like round (5.45) over the 7.62. Clearly they would disagree with your assessment, since they dumped hundreds of millions of rubles into making the switch over.

>Wounding over Penetration. The 5.45 had been designed specifically to cause maximum damage to the point of having a feared reputation among the Mujaheds.

What kind of bullet isn't designed "specifically to cause maximum damage"? Are you insinuating that some bullet designers design their bullets not to cause "maximum damage"? What the fuck does this statement even mean?

>More accurate on semi and full automatic at length.

???? Are you claiming it heats the barrel less and thus causes less dispersion after long strings of fire? Or that it is flatter-shooting? Your Engrish is not helping your case

>yippee, so does the 5.45 (7N39 - 2013).

Now try to get that anywhere :D

>It isn't, you're just fat-fingered. Basic trigger discipline means you keep your finger off the trigger, usually right below that lever. A mere raising or lowering of the finger shifts it. On the AR it's about the same ease in flipping it, though the button is smaller. You're just used to ARs.

If I would like to quickly take the weapon off of safe and fire, it is faster to flick the safety with the thumb and pull the trigger than to shift the grip, flick the safety off with the trigger finger, shift the grip back, and pull the trigger.

>That's not how scopes look like in military or professional AKs. Pic 1 is a military grade mounting for the AK-74. Tight and compact.

Still an afterthought and a hack, still has all the flaws I just mentioned. It is an inferior optic mounting solution to the AR's.

>No, idiot. That's because you're used to ARs and American operating. You don't use your off-hand to pull an AK-charging handle, you use the arm that's going to pull the trigger

Not sure if you're describing an Iraqi reload or something else, either way you're losing your sight picture and strong-hand control of the weapon in a way you won't with an AR, and it's not as easy or fast as hitting the mag release, slapping a new mag in, and hitting the bolt release.

>LMAO no it isn't. The AR is marginally faster by a second in the hands of a skilled operator, this doesn't matter in real life, it's not a machine gun, so constant fire isn't the purpose of an assault rifle.

Gun need bullet to shoot. If shooter slow to put new magazine in, not be able to shoot gun. Grug understand?

>The AK can be taken apart entirely and put back together in seconds by someone that has practice and can be taught to literal children in the space of a couple days, if not a single day.

* AR's can also be taken apart rapidly but that's not a major concern
* field stripping a gun fast is pointless masturbation
hilarious to act like reload speed doesn't matter but field stripping speed does… which one do you think people do way more often in combat?

>The AR magazine also carries less ammunition, and the larger mag is just as unwieldy and forces you to reload more

????? "The AR magazine also carries less ammunition"??? as if there's only one size of AR magazine which carries less ammunition than "the AK magazine"? I'm talking about standard 30 round mags… And why would a larger mag force you to reload more?

>So overall nothing you're saying proves the AK is a bad platform

You've done nothing but try and claim that issues with the AK aren't as bad as stated - you have no counter argument towards the AR. If it's worse for no advantage in another area, that's a shit trade-off and it's bad.
>your "modular" argument utterly ignores modern AKs and uses poor commercial variants as examples and then bringing up military+ specs for the AR.
You haven't countered a single of my "modular" points, I said the side rail was shit and could lose zero easier than an AR, you didn't counter that, I said the AK foregrip overheated, you admitted that and said it didn't matter, I said it was worse for supression, you claimed suppression didn't matter. You stye of argumentation is to concede my points while coping that those features don't matter. I suppose the only relevant feature on a rifle to you is how quickly a schoolchild can field strip it on a table.

>Your main criticisms regard AKs for commercial use in the United States, if your position had been from that angle, I'd probably agree on most points here.

Correct and that's the only position that matters because the US is one of the few places you will be able to choose between the two - no point comparing them if you don't have a choice to inform with that comparison.

 No.2537

>>2534
>some fantasy comparison where real-world factors such as cost are not taken into comparison
Never said the opposite, but cost isn't a reason a platform is shit, since platform is a technical aspect.
>Suppressors matter on assault rifles especially in night operations. Firing signature matters
And suppressors on real AKs are better than commercial products. This isn't an issue of the platform but of commercial production
>Russia switched to a 5.56-like round (5.45) over the 7.62
Because of doctrinal changes - wounds over penetrative stopping power
>they dumped hundreds of millions of rubles into making the switch over.
Millions? Only if you're including the production of AK-74s over time. The actual bullet and redesigning the AK-74 platform didn't even hit a million rubles. And 7.62 continues to get used for different missions.
>What kind of bullet isn't designed "specifically to cause maximum damage"
The 5.45 is designed to tumble and remain in the body causing heavier internal damage and wound signature, the 7.62 focused on penetrative and stopping power.
>you claiming it heats the barrel less and thus causes less dispersion after long strings of fire
<that it is flatter-shooting
Both, speedreading moron. The 5.45 has smaller recoil and due to the design and higher pressure, is easier to aim and fire at full and semi-auto without losing as much accuracy compared to the heavier and less precise AK-47.
>E-engrish
Back to 4/k/ faggot. If you don't understand English that's on you.
>shift the grip
You don't have to shift the fucking grip is my fucking point, that's just you not being used to moving your fingers in that way because you're used to the AR platform.
>Now try to get that anywhere
<implying mil-spec 5.56 is easy to get.
Again you're goal-post shifting. Your blanket statements imply not only commercial but military production.
>Still an afterthought
No retard
>hack
Meaningless ad hom, next
>has all the flaws I just mentioned
No it doesn't. The side mount isn't significantly heavier or disruptive to use.
>an optic mounted on an AK may need to be re-zerod every time you clean the gun
<dust cover
You can remove the dust cover just fine even if the optic is on, you just slide it off and expose the innards. Cleaning an AK in combat/during use is also fucking hilarious, since you're not going to be doing that, any more than an AR. I'm not even talking about the delicate effort of cleaning an AR, something that your image is demonstrating. If you're cleaning an AR on the spot like that you're not going to have a mounting to do it on and the optic may need to be rezeroed again regardless. Your point is moot.
>AK's don't have a bolt release so you must charge the weapon every time you reload
No they don't, I've seen someone reload an AK multiple times and they didn't need to charge the handle if they do the reload correctly.
>as if there's only one size of AR magazine
You speedreading fucktard you literally greened my post and didn't actually read it. The normal AR mag is 20 rounds, the 30 round mag is 35% the length of the 20 round mag and is more unwieldy.
>why would a larger mag force you to reload more
Again you don't read, funny from someone mocking me for speaking "Engrish". I said a smaller mag makes you reload more.
>AR's can also be taken apart rapidly
Not that fast and it requires a long time to do so proficiently. An AK can literally be taken apart and put back together by school children.
> field stripping a gun fast is pointless masturbation
No it isn't, there's a reason the military teaches this in every country.
>either way you're losing your sight picture and strong-hand control of the weapon
No you're not, One handholds up the front, the stock in the shoulder keeps the rear stable, you pull the handle, and hand drops back to ready position by the trigger, done.
>it's not as easy or fast as hitting the mag release, slapping a new mag in, and hitting the bolt release.
It's still very easy and barely slower in any significant manner.
>hilarious to act like reload speed doesn't matter but field stripping speed does
<Lets ignore that I brought up stripping and cleaning in the first place regarding optics
My point is that if you can take your gun apart faster and put it back together (including inserting the mag) then the design isn't inferior.
>Gun need bullet to shoot. If shooter slow to put new magazine in, not be able to shoot gun. Grug understand
Grug, mirror is you, I over here, understand? U No Hav Argument Grug, talking to mirror-Grug
>You've done nothing but try and claim that issues with the AK aren't as bad as stated
Because half your "issues" are one sided and opinionated, and the others are practically non-issues based on your preference of button-releases.
>you have no counter argument towards the AR
Because I'm not here to bash the AR, like you're clearly doing for the AK, asshole
>If it's worse for no advantage in another area
Not what I said nor have you proven.
>You haven't countered a single of my "modular" points
you haven't presented very many. The closest to a valid actual concern is the side-mounts but even those are barely a problem considering the lack of need and the fact that it functions for anyone.
>you didn't counter that
I did, you speedread
>you admitted that and said it didn't matter
The AK foregrip may have a tendency to heat up faster but its not significant because it takes at least a hundred rounds of continual fire to even BEGIN to make it so. If you fire an AR at the same rate of fire continually the foregrip also heats up, in the end tacticool shit like that doesn't actually take anything off either guns technical capabilities.
>I said it was worse for supression, you claimed suppression didn't matter.
No I said suppression, just like most of your criteria doesn't mean the platform is bad. Moreover I stated outright that your claim about AK suppression is fucking wrong and armchair analyst-tier bullshit.
Also
<supression
It's suppression you fucktard, yet another "Engrish" mistake?
>You stye of argumentation
<stye
And again LMAO. You really had the gall to call my English bad? Don't try to be a grammar nazi if you misspell things, because you're going to get the exact same treatment.
>concede my points while coping that those features don't matter.
<C-cope
Back to 4chan you goal-post shifting faggot. Your posts had grains of truth that I agreed to, but you used them to create a false narrative.
>I suppose the only relevant feature on a rifle to you is how quickly a schoolchild can field strip it on a table.
LMAO nice manipulation there bud.

Literally everything you said here could easily be remedied by changing the argument to "Commercial AK furnishings are bad" Often that is true, but that is not the same thing as a PLATFORM or the actual weapon design, you lumping idiot.
>that's the only position that matters because the US is one of the few places you will be able to choose between the two
Then why lump it all under a PLATFORM you dullard?
>no point comparing them if you don't have a choice to inform with that comparison
There is a point because not everyone here is a burgerfaggot. Not to mention your milspec mentions and broad-stroke argumentation that doesn't actually say much.

 No.2541

>>2537
>implying mil-spec 5.56 is easy to get.
* Mk 262 and Mk 262 clones (it's just a nicely loaded 77 grain OTM) are widely available on the civilian market for perhaps $1.25-$2.00 a round.
* M855 is widely available on the civilian market for about $0.35-$0.40 a round.
* M855A1 is new and has only been produced for the military thus far but the bullet design isn't illegal for civvies so sooner or later it will be produced for the civilian market.
>"More accurate on semi and full automatic at length."
>Back to 4/k/ faggot. If you don't understand English that's on you.
lol
>No it doesn't. The side mount isn't significantly heavier or disruptive to use.
Zenitco side mount is .4lbs and the AK is already heavier without it
>"The AR magazine also carries less ammunition, and the larger mag is just as unwieldy and forces you to reload more"
>Again you don't read, funny from someone mocking me for speaking "Engrish". I said a smaller mag makes you reload more.
>The normal AR mag is 20 rounds, the 30 round mag is 35% the length of the 20 round mag and is more unwieldy.
30 round mags have been standard since the M16A2 was adopted in the 1980's. Literally no one in the military or civilian world has used 20 round AR magazines for nearly four decades. Have you ever handled an AR in your life?
>No you're not, One handholds up the front, the stock in the shoulder keeps the rear stable, you pull the handle, and hand drops back to ready position by the trigger, done.
And are you also loading the mag with your right hand? Or are you removing a mag with your left hand, placing a new mag with your left hand, grabbing the foregrip with your left hand, releasing the grip with your right hand, racking the charging handle with your right hand, re-gripping with your right hand? This all seems kind of slow compared to just tapping the mag release button, inserting a new mag with the left hand, pressing the bolt release all with your left hand, no juggling involved.
>My point is that if you can take your gun apart faster and put it back together (including inserting the mag) then the design isn't inferior.
It's slower to reload and faster to dissasemble. That's a stupid tradeoff.
>Because I'm not here to bash the AR, like you're clearly doing for the AK, asshole
You're the one spamming insults and gay-baby raging here lol
>No I said suppression, just like most of your criteria doesn't mean the platform is bad. Moreover I stated outright that your claim about AK suppression is fucking wrong and armchair analyst-tier bullshit.
It's not, a suppressed AK farts in the shooter's face through the rear of the dust cover. Lol.
>Literally everything you said here could easily be remedied by changing the argument to "Commercial AK furnishings are bad" Often that is true, but that is not the same thing as a PLATFORM or the actual weapon design, you lumping idiot.
Ah, I forgot we were talking about the hypothetical Ur-AK, the mystical essence of the AK design which is not realized, but instead dreamed of.

I swear this board is fucking useless. I can go on any other gun forum or board and find threads about every relevant topic to firearm use or ownership I might care to research, or I can go on here and get WORDS WORDS WORDS spammed by ape retards who lack BASIC knowledge about the topics they are talking about, to the point where it almost seems like they're intentionally trying to prevent useful discussion. You think people run 20 round mags in AR's uygha you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about uygha

 No.2552

…People in this thread are seriously defending the AK? Like I get it guys, Lenin was cool and all, but the AK platform has been obsolete since 1956.

 No.2553


 No.2554

>>2552
God bless america

 No.2556

>>2552
>People in this thread are seriously defending the AK
<obsolete since 1956
LMAO you better be trolling.

 No.2567

>>2552
AKs are obsolescent, not obsolete. They're out of date, but they're still in production.

 No.2568

File: 1666460908508.png (1.79 MB, 1920x720, RK62M1.png)

>>2552
explain this then

 No.2569

>>2568
It has 200g of extra weight, literally unusable

 No.2570

>>2568
Also, Israelis apparently have a new gun design based around AK and I doubt they'd be dumb enough to use a rifle worse than a cheap AR for it:
AK Alfa, redesigned AK 47 for Israeli special forces
https://continental-defence.com/ak-alfa-redesigned-ak-47-for-israeli-special-forces
>“There was no weapon more beloved by the soldiers than the AK. It is still in service in some Israeli units, and they are not going to abandon it, arguing that any other machine gun can fail, and the AK does not provide such a “function”, said Moshe Oz while recalling his experience of serving in the Israeli special forces.
>According to Mikhail Ben Oren, the chief designer of the AK Alfa, “Kalashnikov is an excellent thing and does not need to be touched. He has everything in the right place. And the flue system is functioning flawlessly, and the reload handle is in the right place, with perfectly aligned distances.”
>The Israeli gunsmiths updated nearly every aspect of the gun, making its handling more convenient; the handling the carbine has been thought out to the minutest detail. Almost everything is changed and adjusted.

 No.2572

File: 1666466158453.jpg (54.96 KB, 800x533, sako m23.jpg)

>>2568
Officially being replaced by the M23.
I'm sorry anon, but only shitholes use AKs.

 No.2573

jesus christ this debate is mondo retarded.
All you do is buy a gun that uses either NATO round if you're in a NATO based country, THAT'S IT.
Learn about your gun, learn how it works, learn how to fix common short comings and you're done, do dry drills whenever you can.
AR or AK is a completely pointless argument in a real life situation. Stop being retards, as an "AK" guy, I got an AR because if shit hits the fan I can find bullets and parts EASILY. Don't overthink your gun, Think about actual organization. dweebs.

 No.2574

>>2573
>Think about actual organization.
what site do you think you're on right now?

 No.2575

>>2572
Jungle>Garden.

 No.2576

>>2572
Friend didn't like it when he got to shoot one, opinion invalidated

 No.2577

AKs are fine guns, but isn't it pretty much settled that milled (greater than) stamped? Why did HK stop making stamped(as much as a I love the G3?) I hear that milled AKs are actually better too.

 No.2578

>>2576
It's alright anon, now that Finland's gonna be in NATO we'll bring him into the 21st century.

 No.2592

So there is this reactoid I follow called StalinFrog. He's like a vet I believe. Talks about a lot of things, but he also talks a lot about guns, which are good and which are bad deals. He believes in super modern guns are the way to go. Anyways, made this thread, discussing how to build yourself an AR-15. Decided to post it here as it could be a guide or you could maybe correct some shit he says. How good is what he saying and how much of it is retarded? I'm not the best expert on the subject

 No.2593

>>2592
I mean you COULD go with all of that or you could just buy an Aero upper and a BCM lower. Don't overthink your first AR, you'll end up spending too much and descending into insanity and poverty as you try to figure out whether you should buy an H2 or an H3 buffer in case you want your gun to be more controllable when you illegally modify it to fire full auto by printing out a yankee boogle.

 No.2596

>>2577
Stamped is better, but milling is cheaper if your production quantities are not high enough. Plus there is a lot of technological nuances in stamping.
Also AR are not milled, they are drop forged.
>milled AKs are actually better too
I dont know about non-Soviet AK derivatives, but in the ex-USSR countries milled AK are a rarity - they have beed out of production for half a century, and for a good reason. Milled is heavy, and you don't want your rifle to be heavy.

 No.2597

File: 1667861502251-0.png (2.2 MB, 1944x2177, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1667861502251-1.png (146.53 KB, 1080x920, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1667861502251-2.png (157.57 KB, 700x700, ClipboardImage.png)

Also replying to this thread in general.

0)You need to LEARN SHOOTING. Buy PCP airgun or .22 LR and train A LOT. Airgun/.22LR skills are 100% transferable to any larger-caliber firearm.

1)Your rifle NEED to have optics. Both Soviet Abakan and USA ACR trials determinde that fitting a 5.5 mm rifle with an optic sight increase its combat efficiency by the factor 1.5-1.7. It's so important that you better buy subpar rifle with good scope than top tier AR with no scope. 1-6x30 var magnification wide angle is your best choice. 3x or 4x wide angle (12 deg or so) second best.
2)Your gun need to fire 5.5 mm ammo. 5.45 is better than 5.56 (flatter trajectory, better ballistics both outer and terminal, by 300-400 m it will have more energy than 5.55), but more important factor is ammo availability. Living in NATO country you will probably find 5.56 cheaper and more abundant.
7.62 is much worse, unless you do subsonic loads in 7.62x39.
3)Your gun need to be reliable and serviceable. Your comrade need to know how to use your gun, you need to know how to use your comrade's gun. Therefore it's best to get a derivative of your country standart issue rifle. Well, don't go and buy L85, but brits cant into guns anyway.
4)Good muzzle device is a must. Fitting AK-74-style muzzle break/flas hider on an AR decrease burst spread like 2 or 3 times and improves overall combat efficiency 10 to 25%. No need to get exact replica, any good working muzzle break/flash hider/compensator combo works. Precision Armaments AFAB seems to be one of the best options rn, providing about 50% recoil impulse reduction and near-perfect flash dissipation.
Or go with a tactical supressor. Reducing sound signature can be more important that improving rapid-fire control, depending on situation.

Go also get NVG or night scpoe, if you can afford it. Immense edge in any low-light situation and general situation awareness during nighttime. War revolves around knowing where your enemy is and not letting the enemy to know where you are. Any means toward these are a great force multiplier.

TL;DR buy an 5.56 rifle with a good scope, AR if in USA.

 No.2598

>>2597
>Reducing sound signature can be more important that improving rapid-fire control, depending on situation.
A lot of your post is good, but this statement along with the "put an AK muzzle device on your AR" makes me wonder if you've ever fired a gun in real life. A suppressor doesn't affect your ability to fire a weapon on full auto unless you're firing some shit like an AK where putting a suppressor on it burns your face with every shot.

 No.2600

File: 1667888009694-0.jpg (1.31 MB, 3000x1987, 300 m 2.jpg)

File: 1667888009694-1.jpg (1.57 MB, 3000x1987, 300 m.jpg)

>>2598
You probably misread my post, or I was not clear enough. The point is muzzle break is more effective at improving control at full auto or rapid fire than supressor.
However, supressor _does_ provide some recoil mitigation, as it stops and slowly expands powder gases, greatly reducing or nullifying their impulse.
Precoil=Pgas+Pbullet
Pgas=Vgas (higher than bullet V0) x Mpowder
For M855 Mpowder = 1.7 g or 26 gr for you burgers, Mbullet=4 g or 62 gr
Therefore a good supressor can reduce your recoil impulse by a third or so.

Muzzle break, OTOH, have a theoretical maximum effectiveness of about 120-140% - I dont remember exact values, it was backk in the uni in external ballistic course. Yeah, it can make your gun recoil forward. Practical designs which don't kick up a ton of dust and rupture your neighbour eardrum have 50-60% efficiency.

So, practical muzzle break is about 2x as effective as prractical suppressor in reducing recoil.

>put an AK muzzle device on your AR

That's LITERALLY what US Army did back in the 80s when they felt fed up with AR15 derivatives and were trying to replace or at least improve M16. Did you ever opened pic1 in my post?
Also I specifically made a point of using whatever effective muzzle device one can find and gave an AR-native candidate, PA AFAB (or EFAB if you want that extra exquisite looking 3%).

>AK where putting a suppressor on it burns your face

Close fitting ballistic glasses are your friends. Still a stinky endeavor, but supressed subsonic Saiga-9 is neat.

>ever fired a gun in real life

Wrong. It just some theory may seem contrintuitive or unothrodox, while still being true.

 No.2601

>>2596
>Stamped is better, but milling is cheaper
You have that absolutely backwards. Milling will always be stiffer then a stamped sheet. Just use basic logic and/or research it.

>Also AR are not milled, they are drop forged.

They're both, but even the forged ones are milled.

 No.2602

>>2601
>Milling will always be stiffer then a stamped sheet
For a given weight stamped part will always be stiffer than milled due to strain hardening.

 No.2603

File: 1667889609919-0.png (2.06 MB, 1500x997, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1667889609919-1.png (904.72 KB, 1200x800, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1667889609919-2.png (492.81 KB, 939x408, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2602
>For a given weight stamped part will always be stiffer than milled due to strain hardening.
>for a given weight
Ok if weight is your main concern, whatever, we're talking about which gun is going to be stiffer(durable, accurate), a forged/milled AR or a stamped AK(or a milled AK for that matter.) That's why the PSG-1 adds extra metal to the outside of the receiver to stiffen it.

>Stamped is better, but milling is cheaper

Absolutely wrong on the price. Look it up. Stamping is the cheaper method.

 No.2604

>>2603
>PSG-1
B/c G3 receiver were not that rigid to begin with. Lenghtwise-cut pipe loses 90% of its rigidity, and G3 is exactly that. AK receiver, being a box reinforced with ribs and several transverse axles, is far more geometrically rigid/stable to begin with. The only (somewhat) weak part of the design with regard to accurcy/stability is handguard. Free-floating handguard nearly eliminates PoI drift from different shooting positions - both on AK and AR.

>which gun is going to be stiffer(durable, accurate)

Of no practical concern. Soviet AK-74s are still going durable and (reasonably - say, 3 MOA) accurate, and when they aren't, it's not due to "flimsy" receiver - it's due to barrel wear after 10 or 20 thousands of 5.45.
No one needs a super durable ultra accurate extra long life rifle - a gun must be more accurate than its shooter, and durable enough to survive a few years of warfare. Anything more is just more useless dead mass in your hands, day in and day out.

>Stamping is the cheaper method

The tooling for a quality stamped receiver is going to cost 10x or even 100x more than tooling for milled receiver. Stamping presses, punching presses, automatic welding, punches and dies versus a single CNC machine, or even a mill, lathe and drill press. The end product of stamping will be cheaper only for really large batches - say, on the order of 100 000 rifles or more.

 No.2615

>>2572
Not necessarily a "superior" rifle let alone making the AKs in use by Russia obsolete. See: the retarded shit the American military keeps doing with "new service rifles".

 No.2616

>>2603
>>2604
If you guys are talking stiffness/accuracy it is worth noting that the stiffness of the barrel is the most important. It is worth looking into fluted barrels and barrels with carbon inserts, both of which increase barrel stiffness. IMO there is probably some cheaper polymer that you could use as an insert for fluted barrels that would maintain both rigidity and thermal mass. Depends on what your application is anyways.


Unique IPs: 48

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]