Nah, but I can show you a vid of a Russian hitting a Ukie with a burst in a 1v1 trench fight. Shit's useful in close range, which is the exact reason it's a requirement for an assault rifle.
That being said, any military issued AR variant is going to have a fun switch, so the stupid AK doesn't exactly have the edge in that regard.
So does the AR. Webm related. Ukies prefer the AR-15 platform. The only ones using an AK platform are ones who couldn't get access to an AK. Ukie special ops also use ARs.
It doesn't really matter. ARs are nice, but they have massive stockpiles of 5.45 and the only crucial factor is being able to mount optics and a suppressor, which they can both do just fine. I think gun owners far overstate the importance of small arms because its all they've got, but in the grand scheme of things its thermals that make a difference and the rifle its mounted on is an afterthought and even that is so overshadowed by artillery, air and armor as to be a total joke.
Ukie tier 1 combat troops seem to prefer ARs (see the trench raid and lots of other footage).
Even the kid who singlehandedly held the trench said he was planning to buy an AR (before receiving an M4A1 for free from general potato).
>Ukie tier 1 combat troops seem to prefer ARs (see the trench raid and lots of other footage).
this
Also trench kid ate a bunch of shrapnel in his arm some time later and is on medical leave. Just throwing that out there. Right now he's fully healed but not fully recovered. Lost a bunch of weight
In the grand scheme of things? nothing about their individually noteworthy quirks matters. A select fire, fully automatic rifle, that may or may not accept optics your unit can't afford anyways, is still fundamentally a useful gun.
AK74's are doing the brunt of the work in ukraine, so I guess the AK74. AR's are well liked ever there too and many find them very appealing as an almost a status symbol
Only morons think it really matters. Vietnam wasn't lost because the AK was better, nor was Afghanistan. Similarly, this war won't be won in any considerable part due to either the AK or AR or their superiority over on another. Rifles are fine.
This is about what I was going to say. Squad tactics and support mean more as long as you have a portable rifled automatic firearm.
Being said, a lot of AKs don't support the mounting of optics. And suppressing them is more complicated than the AR.
This is extremely midwit thinking. Just because something doesn't win a war doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Not a single side won ww2 based on quality of their torpedoes, but you can't say USA didn't have piece of shit torpedoes
And to add on, they probably would have won at least a little bit quicker and/or with at least slightly fewer casualties if their torpedoes had been better.
The terminal ballistics of M855A1 or even M193 are by themselves a significant improvement over 5.45 FMJ at the individual level.
If the improvement in which you're referring has very little effect upon the result of the war then to answer the question "Which is the better rifle? In terms of this Russian Ukrainian conflict?", the answer is still "only morons think it really matters". Your example doesn't mean shit either because neither the AR or the AK are shit. While the AR is probably better, the difference between them in context is pretty much negligible.
And to add on, they probably would have won at least a little bit quicker and/or with at least slightly fewer casualties if their torpedoes had been better.
The terminal ballistics of M855A1 or even M193 are by themselves a significant improvement over 5.45 FMJ at the individual level.
I don't think the gap in AR vs AK is as big as those of WWII torpedoes, but I'm not particularly well informed on the latter. But if we're gonna have to sit here and pick apart ballistics tests and weigh them against availability, perceived recoil, different loadings, weight, etc like this discussion will likely end up coming to, then the difference probably isn't as considerable as you think. Checked though.
Considering how important submarines were to American success in WW2, I actually think the torpedo analogy by other anon falls flat.
Mark 14 torpedoes (US torpedo at the outset of the war) was absolute trash because no serious testing protocols had been done to save costs (no major live fire tests, just canned dummy rounds and lab testing of components).
After two years of retrofits/improvements, the US started to absolutely BTFO the Japanese with improved torpedoes.
>The Japanese cargo carrying capacity of 6 million tons at the start of the war was reduced to about 5 million tons by the end of 1943 [when the Mark 14 torpedo was finally fix], and to less than 3 million tons by the end of 1944 despite a rigorous ship building program. At war's end in August 1945 Japan had less than 2 million tons of cargo shipping, but only 312,000 tons of it was in condition to haul cargo. Despite ship construction of 3 1/4 million tons during the war, replacement tonnage amounted to only about a third of losses due to all causes. Because of shipping losses, Japanese imports of bulk commodities fell from about 20 million tons in 1941 to about 16 1/2 million tons at the end of 1943, and further to 10 million tons in 1944. The importation of materials had essentially ceased by the time Japan surrendered in August 1945. By then Japan's war industry was stalled, and it was impossible for the military to wage war abroad. It was also nearly impossible for the civilian population to exist on the meager rations of food and energy available.
No, small arms aren't going to be decisive. Nor are they the highest priority for procurement/upgrades. But it is possible to examine them in a narrow context and see which is better at a minute level.
It certainly is possible, but as I said, only morons think it matters. You seem to agree with this sentiment anyway, but it seems like others don't, because they're moronic, which is why I felt the need to say it to begin with. That said, even in the narrow context of this war and at a minute level it's kinda hard to say. Were I fighting in Ukraine though, I'd certainly be willing to use the newer rifles from the greatest military alliance in human history and whatever else they were willing to provide.
I keep going back and forth but ultimately its got to be the AR. It's more reliable and allows for a lot of different sights. At the end of the day if you can't hit your target it doesn't matter what you're shooting. And I doubt a lot of these people have time to clean their rifles while working, despite their respective reputations, the AR handles dirt and debris better.
Then again the AK shoots a bigger round and if you can manage to not suck with it and actually hit your target which if children in Africa can, you'll dispatch whatever it is just as fast.
I read somewhere that the AK rounds actually travel in an arc to hit their maximum range as opposed to the AR's which goes flat until max range then drops. I don't know how true that is.
I also slightly dislike the AR because of how common is is and the contrarian in me wants something different but in the same caliber so I don't have to actually risk anything. AUG's are nice...
We're talking about the AK74; the 5.45x39 is comparable in size to 5.56mm, though 5.56mm has greater bullet energy. Although it doesn't matter, because even when talking about the 7.62x39 of the AK47, 7.62x39 has absolutely dogshit terminal ballistics, 5.56 has significantly greater lethality within practical battlefield distances. The Soviet Union phased out 7.62x39 in favor of 5.45 for this exact reason.
>I read somewhere that the AK rounds actually travel in an arc to hit their maximum range as opposed to the AR's which goes flat until max range then drops. I don't know how true that is.
I'm glad you prefaced that with "I read somewhere" because it's pretty clear you've never fired a gun. ALL bullets fired from ALL rifles travel in an arc. While the AR-15 has a "flatter" trajectory than the AK47, the max ordinate is still high enough with a 300 yard zero that at intermediate distances of 150-200 meters you have to aim low to hit a target center mass. The AK74 has a comparable trajectory and max ordinate.
>And I doubt a lot of these people have time to clean their rifles while working
Also, forgot to harp on this. You have no idea how much fricking downtime there is between missions. Weapons cleaning is something you do regular.
Good on you for not being a gay and falling for the "mUh aK hAnDlEs mUd bEtTeR" meme. InRange did a great job debunking that crap. Though realistically, the AK (47 or 74) will handle realistic amounts of battlefield debris and crap equally well as any competently made AR; InRange was demonstrating the most extreme example possible.
AKs are enthusiasts guns. The platform does very few things better than the ar15. You have to pump a mass amount of money and time into getting an AK to be able to even enter the same realm as a shitty ar15. Also, given the fact than the ar15 has standardization of parts, its almost always going to be possible to get 1 working gun from 2 broken ones in the field.
> Rifle and ammo stockpiles available already > Troops already familiar with ergonomics > Can carry more ammo with you as well than AR, so less strain on logistics > Performs better than AR in sub-zero temperatures, easy to unstuck once frozen > For the very specific mud meme: while open design is more prone to getting mud in it, you can also get it out more easily, which matters in this case as something as simple as cleaning tools or extra water may not be always available or issued > Yes, Ukraine also has deserts in south which is relevant right now, and GWOT vets have had quite a bit of criticism towards ARs in these conditions > If there are loads with inferior armor penetration capability that are in use, it does not matter against orcs due to their lack of protective equipment quite often > Not a large enough difference in accuracy and effective range to matter between 5.45 and 5.56, engagements are also in some fronts not so common on open terrain where nobody dares to stay exposed for too long > Special forces gays just want to look gucci and different, so yeah of course they will try to get a hold on ARs to show off (especially due to slavic mentality)
AR. Everytime no matter the context.
>AR
>no matter the context
OK.... No ammo availability for AR
Truck loads of ammo for the AK
5.45×39 or 7.62×39 AR
AR pattern has actual capabilities needed for modern warfare, the other is a T34 of rifles, all propaganda, no substance.
AR, because AK proved to be piece of shit the moment soldiers had access to more guns
That AK has full auto
>Uragan has 8 wheels
Can you show me someone spraying down in full auto a group of soldiers?
Nah, but I can show you a vid of a Russian hitting a Ukie with a burst in a 1v1 trench fight. Shit's useful in close range, which is the exact reason it's a requirement for an assault rifle.
That being said, any military issued AR variant is going to have a fun switch, so the stupid AK doesn't exactly have the edge in that regard.
So does the AR. Webm related. Ukies prefer the AR-15 platform. The only ones using an AK platform are ones who couldn't get access to an AK. Ukie special ops also use ARs.
It doesn't really matter. ARs are nice, but they have massive stockpiles of 5.45 and the only crucial factor is being able to mount optics and a suppressor, which they can both do just fine. I think gun owners far overstate the importance of small arms because its all they've got, but in the grand scheme of things its thermals that make a difference and the rifle its mounted on is an afterthought and even that is so overshadowed by artillery, air and armor as to be a total joke.
Ukie tier 1 combat troops seem to prefer ARs (see the trench raid and lots of other footage).
Even the kid who singlehandedly held the trench said he was planning to buy an AR (before receiving an M4A1 for free from general potato).
Yup. Zelensky’s personal guard appears to be largely rocking M4s as well.
>Ukie tier 1 combat troops seem to prefer ARs (see the trench raid and lots of other footage).
this
Also trench kid ate a bunch of shrapnel in his arm some time later and is on medical leave. Just throwing that out there. Right now he's fully healed but not fully recovered. Lost a bunch of weight
I wish that lil homie all the best, he deserves to retire in peace for that stand alone.
Blew my mind when I saw how young he was.
In the grand scheme of things? nothing about their individually noteworthy quirks matters. A select fire, fully automatic rifle, that may or may not accept optics your unit can't afford anyways, is still fundamentally a useful gun.
AK74's are doing the brunt of the work in ukraine, so I guess the AK74. AR's are well liked ever there too and many find them very appealing as an almost a status symbol
Only morons think it really matters. Vietnam wasn't lost because the AK was better, nor was Afghanistan. Similarly, this war won't be won in any considerable part due to either the AK or AR or their superiority over on another. Rifles are fine.
This is about what I was going to say. Squad tactics and support mean more as long as you have a portable rifled automatic firearm.
Being said, a lot of AKs don't support the mounting of optics. And suppressing them is more complicated than the AR.
This is extremely midwit thinking. Just because something doesn't win a war doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Not a single side won ww2 based on quality of their torpedoes, but you can't say USA didn't have piece of shit torpedoes
And to add on, they probably would have won at least a little bit quicker and/or with at least slightly fewer casualties if their torpedoes had been better.
The terminal ballistics of M855A1 or even M193 are by themselves a significant improvement over 5.45 FMJ at the individual level.
I love M193 much as anyone else, but 5.45 Soviet offers superior penetration (a speeding, 55gr bullet will glance off a leaf)
>5.45 Soviet offers superior penetration (a speeding, 55gr bullet will glance off a leaf)
fuddlore, 5.56 has more mass and momentum than any 5.45
?t=159
>5.45 Soviet offers superior penetration
No it doesn't. M193 penetrates some level III plates out of >16" barrels.
5.45 has less mass and less velocity and is far less stable thanks to its hollow tip, it would do even worse in this test you fricking moron.
If the improvement in which you're referring has very little effect upon the result of the war then to answer the question "Which is the better rifle? In terms of this Russian Ukrainian conflict?", the answer is still "only morons think it really matters". Your example doesn't mean shit either because neither the AR or the AK are shit. While the AR is probably better, the difference between them in context is pretty much negligible.
I don't think the gap in AR vs AK is as big as those of WWII torpedoes, but I'm not particularly well informed on the latter. But if we're gonna have to sit here and pick apart ballistics tests and weigh them against availability, perceived recoil, different loadings, weight, etc like this discussion will likely end up coming to, then the difference probably isn't as considerable as you think. Checked though.
Considering how important submarines were to American success in WW2, I actually think the torpedo analogy by other anon falls flat.
Mark 14 torpedoes (US torpedo at the outset of the war) was absolute trash because no serious testing protocols had been done to save costs (no major live fire tests, just canned dummy rounds and lab testing of components).
After two years of retrofits/improvements, the US started to absolutely BTFO the Japanese with improved torpedoes.
>The Japanese cargo carrying capacity of 6 million tons at the start of the war was reduced to about 5 million tons by the end of 1943 [when the Mark 14 torpedo was finally fix], and to less than 3 million tons by the end of 1944 despite a rigorous ship building program. At war's end in August 1945 Japan had less than 2 million tons of cargo shipping, but only 312,000 tons of it was in condition to haul cargo. Despite ship construction of 3 1/4 million tons during the war, replacement tonnage amounted to only about a third of losses due to all causes. Because of shipping losses, Japanese imports of bulk commodities fell from about 20 million tons in 1941 to about 16 1/2 million tons at the end of 1943, and further to 10 million tons in 1944. The importation of materials had essentially ceased by the time Japan surrendered in August 1945. By then Japan's war industry was stalled, and it was impossible for the military to wage war abroad. It was also nearly impossible for the civilian population to exist on the meager rations of food and energy available.
No, small arms aren't going to be decisive. Nor are they the highest priority for procurement/upgrades. But it is possible to examine them in a narrow context and see which is better at a minute level.
It certainly is possible, but as I said, only morons think it matters. You seem to agree with this sentiment anyway, but it seems like others don't, because they're moronic, which is why I felt the need to say it to begin with. That said, even in the narrow context of this war and at a minute level it's kinda hard to say. Were I fighting in Ukraine though, I'd certainly be willing to use the newer rifles from the greatest military alliance in human history and whatever else they were willing to provide.
I keep going back and forth but ultimately its got to be the AR. It's more reliable and allows for a lot of different sights. At the end of the day if you can't hit your target it doesn't matter what you're shooting. And I doubt a lot of these people have time to clean their rifles while working, despite their respective reputations, the AR handles dirt and debris better.
Then again the AK shoots a bigger round and if you can manage to not suck with it and actually hit your target which if children in Africa can, you'll dispatch whatever it is just as fast.
I read somewhere that the AK rounds actually travel in an arc to hit their maximum range as opposed to the AR's which goes flat until max range then drops. I don't know how true that is.
I also slightly dislike the AR because of how common is is and the contrarian in me wants something different but in the same caliber so I don't have to actually risk anything. AUG's are nice...
>No guns detected
>AK shoots a bigger round
We're talking about the AK74; the 5.45x39 is comparable in size to 5.56mm, though 5.56mm has greater bullet energy. Although it doesn't matter, because even when talking about the 7.62x39 of the AK47, 7.62x39 has absolutely dogshit terminal ballistics, 5.56 has significantly greater lethality within practical battlefield distances. The Soviet Union phased out 7.62x39 in favor of 5.45 for this exact reason.
>I read somewhere that the AK rounds actually travel in an arc to hit their maximum range as opposed to the AR's which goes flat until max range then drops. I don't know how true that is.
I'm glad you prefaced that with "I read somewhere" because it's pretty clear you've never fired a gun. ALL bullets fired from ALL rifles travel in an arc. While the AR-15 has a "flatter" trajectory than the AK47, the max ordinate is still high enough with a 300 yard zero that at intermediate distances of 150-200 meters you have to aim low to hit a target center mass. The AK74 has a comparable trajectory and max ordinate.
>And I doubt a lot of these people have time to clean their rifles while working
Also, forgot to harp on this. You have no idea how much fricking downtime there is between missions. Weapons cleaning is something you do regular.
Good on you for not being a gay and falling for the "mUh aK hAnDlEs mUd bEtTeR" meme. InRange did a great job debunking that crap. Though realistically, the AK (47 or 74) will handle realistic amounts of battlefield debris and crap equally well as any competently made AR; InRange was demonstrating the most extreme example possible.
But we don't want to talk about aks and m4s, we want to talk about the XM7
>the XM7 is powerful
>too powerful
>the power is necessary
>repeat
Wait, were there any domestically produced Ukrainian AKs? I thought they were all made at either Izhevsk or Tula
AKs are enthusiasts guns. The platform does very few things better than the ar15. You have to pump a mass amount of money and time into getting an AK to be able to even enter the same realm as a shitty ar15. Also, given the fact than the ar15 has standardization of parts, its almost always going to be possible to get 1 working gun from 2 broken ones in the field.
Are you telling me AK parts aren't standardized?
AK-74
Fully automatic with ballistically superior ammunition is fun.
>ballistically superior ammunition
>5.45
Stop samegayging, moron, this is demonstrably untrue.
5.45:
skinnier and longer
ballistically superior
5.56:
fatter and shorter
ballistically inferior
he's right bro. BC is superior.
Noguns moron here, I would say AK
> Rifle and ammo stockpiles available already
> Troops already familiar with ergonomics
> Can carry more ammo with you as well than AR, so less strain on logistics
> Performs better than AR in sub-zero temperatures, easy to unstuck once frozen
> For the very specific mud meme: while open design is more prone to getting mud in it, you can also get it out more easily, which matters in this case as something as simple as cleaning tools or extra water may not be always available or issued
> Yes, Ukraine also has deserts in south which is relevant right now, and GWOT vets have had quite a bit of criticism towards ARs in these conditions
> If there are loads with inferior armor penetration capability that are in use, it does not matter against orcs due to their lack of protective equipment quite often
> Not a large enough difference in accuracy and effective range to matter between 5.45 and 5.56, engagements are also in some fronts not so common on open terrain where nobody dares to stay exposed for too long
> Special forces gays just want to look gucci and different, so yeah of course they will try to get a hold on ARs to show off (especially due to slavic mentality)
Actually I just think AK is cooler, simple as
Whichever one the better fighter is holding, there's nothing more to it
In terms of the Russian ukraine conflict, complete negligible differences