# AR-15 or AK-47?



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Which do you guys think is better? I've herd the ups and downs on both, but I want to know your guys opinion on them. (or any other member of the ar/ak family)


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

both j/k well maybe

In all fairness its a Glock / 1911 thing, a this caliber or that caliber thing, and definitely a personal preferance. A year ago I finally opted to buy / trade for a Springfield M1A and am most happy with what I can manage to do with it. The AR's are now for my wife and the M1A is for me as long as able. I could see the AR being a better weapon for a senior, some women, and the youngest capable. However the AK and the M1A are likely better choices for someone that knows how to use them and are capable.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Both. But as you may know, mine were lost in a boating accident over the Marianna Trench while on Lake Superior.


----------



## wesley762 (Oct 23, 2012)

I own both, not because of a Need but a Want. The AR is lighter and you have better Range, the AK is heaver but hits harder. The AK is more affordable both in cost and to shoot, but the AR well its just sexy Ya I said it....


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

At one time I would have said hands down AK. However with the rise in AK prices and the ability of this administration to cut off importation of 7.62x39mm under the guise of deterring aggression against Ukraine. The AR's stock has risen. Enough? I'm not buying yet we'll see what it looks like then.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I'm torn between the two, more stoping power vs more ammo per lbs, Love both, so I'll make due with both. Sorry, was thinking 308 vs 223, My bad. Just an sks will do as well as a high dollar ak in my mind.


----------



## dutch16 (Mar 13, 2014)

Ripon, +1 for the M1A. But given Firefighter's choices, I'll take my AR in 6.8spc over the AK.


----------



## Reptilicus (Jan 4, 2014)

Why not an AR-10, best of both worlds, longer range AND more punch! JMO I like more bang for my buck!


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

AR if for no other reason then there will be a shortage of the 7.62 x 39mm round before there will be of the 5.56mm, and frankly the AR is a better weapon.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

I am all about a 1911 and AR.. Sure Glocks and AK's have their place. They are great weapons. Just not MY personal preference... It all depends on the person and what they want to do with the weapon.. The AK will take some nasty abuse and still fire. So will the AR but I thin the AK will take more and still fire. That said, I would still take the AR over the AK.. Every one has their own opinion and none of them are right or wrong. It all depends on what YOU want to do with it.. Just like the 1911 vs Glock or other polymer/striker fired weapon. Some guys LOVE the 9mm Glock. I am not saying anything bad about it. It is actually a fine weapon form what I know. I just prefer a .45 in a 1911 model weapon.. 

Pick your poison.. If you ask 20 guys, you will get 20 OPINIONS.. Pick what is best for YOU...,


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

I get 4 bangs for my buck with a 223


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

AR is better over all. sorry AK fans. AK is an OK weapon in a worst case scenario, but I want to stick with AR. it is accurate and better made. keep it clean and it will work for you just fine. I hear a lot of people say about "stoping power", well there is no such thing in my opinion. if you get hit with an AK round in the head you are dead, same with AR round. During my academy days the topic of stoping power came up, they showed us a training accident where a guy was hit with a howitzer on the gut, he survived. mean while another person gets hit with a 22 on the hip and dies. the round bounced around and severed an artery and killed its victim.


----------



## Infidel (Dec 22, 2012)

Of the 2 choices given I think the AR is probably the better choice but I see no reason not to own both if it's within your means. In general ARs tend to be more accurate than AKs although with the sheer number of AKs in this country I see no reason why you couldn't make one accurate with the right aftermarket parts. Having said that I don't own either rifle and instead opted for a Mini-14 and an SKS, either rifle will fill the same roles, I've just never been a fan of the AR or AK (the AK is starting to grow on me though I have to admit). The AKs niche is reliability, they will function no matter what you throw at them. I doubt there's many ARs that could say the same but then again the AK can't match the ARs accuracy.

-Infidel


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I had an Armalite once, made by Colt, issued by Uncle Sam. This was back in the begining of the M16's service life, I understand improvements have been made since then.
If I had no military grade rifle and had to decide between the AR or the AK, I would most likely choose a QUALITY AR since here in America I could no doubt keep it cleaned and maintained well enough to work properly. 
But, I am awash in military grade rifles and see no need to own an AR. I bought a used Mini 14 for a cheap rifle in 223/5.56. This is my farm rifle, although frankly a Winchester 94 does that task better. 
I really only bought my AK because Obama didn't want me to have one. But now that I have it I can see it's potential.
As far as the argument about the AR's accuracy advantage, there are several types of "accuracy". There is range accuracy, shooting stationary targets under controlled conditions. And there is combat accuracy, which is a different thing. Entirely.

Bottom line is this - both the AR and the AK have advantages and disadvantages. Try them both then get what you prefer.


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

Have em both, like them both but my go to rifle is my M1A


----------



## Ratchetman (May 2, 2014)

I have shot full auto ar15 and loved it. I have never shot a ak..but I hear ak u can put in the water and mud and they shoot still. I would. Say in a firefight I'd take the ar15 for precision


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

The AR is better if you want to hit something with one shot. The AK is better if you want to mud wrestle with it then shoot a barn.


----------



## RogerD (Mar 31, 2014)

I prefer my ak, its one tuff field gun. Very low maintenance compared to my son's ar.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

the correct answer is it depends.........

lol

I have the AR, the AR-10, the M1A, The M1 Garand, The SKS and the AK. All do the job they are intended to do. It depends on what I need to do and how close in/ far away I want to do it.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

This is the debate that has no end..........


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Just thinking..... My AR is more accurate then my SKS which shoots the same round as the AK, but there is the matter of the ammunition I use. Most of the AR rounds I shoot are rounds that I have hand loaded myself, while most of the rounds I shoot with SKS are cheap East European rounds or Norinco. The only American manufactured rounds that I have found are made by Remington and are pretty costly. I wonder as more ammunition manufacturers start producing the 7.62 x 39mm rounds and make available their components available for reloading, if the accuracy will improve on both the SKS and the AK. I believe the accuracy will improve, but not to the point of matching the AR, especially after 300 yds or so. 

Frankly between the two weapons it boils down to personal preferences and circumstances. I own a AR and prefer it, but allot of that has to do with my familiarity with it from my time in the military. I own a SKS and think that it also is a fine weapon. I know that it's successor is even better, and it is on my list of rifles I would like to own, right behind the M1A and a Garand. Arguing which is better, an AR or an AK is similar to arguing which color is better, blue or green. Personal preference.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

sparkyprep said:


> This is the debate that has no end..........


I notice the phrase that you have at the bottom of your post "Friends don't let friends own Glocks." Although off topic, I have a question. What about the new Glock 1911? (LOL)


----------



## Oddcaliber (Feb 17, 2014)

Well,as said by others both rifles have there pros and cons. I have fired both. I will stay with what I can shoot the best with. I also have an SKS,puts rounds whare I want them. AR or AK its a coin toss as to what one wants.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

um my advice what's better between the two

learn how to shoot first then worry about what boom stick is better


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> I notice the phrase that you have at the bottom of your post "Friends don't let friends own Glocks." Although off topic, I have a question. What about the new Glock 1911? (LOL)


Not a fan of 1911 either. Too big, bulky, low magazine fill, 100 year old tech.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

sparkyprep said:


> Not a fan of 1911 either. Too big, bulky, low magazine fill, 100 year old tech.


Well to the big an bulky part I have no answer for you, for the magazine capacity, look to the Para Ord P14-45, P16-40 or P18-9, the Springfield HC 1911 14 round, the Bul M5 14 round and the STI 1911 HC frame series.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> Just thinking..... My AR is more accurate then my SKS which shoots the same round as the AK, but there is the matter of the ammunition I use. Most of the AR rounds I shoot are rounds that I have hand loaded myself, while most of the rounds I shoot with SKS are cheap East European rounds or Norinco. The only American manufactured rounds that I have found are made by Remington and are pretty costly. I wonder as more ammunition manufacturers start producing the 7.62 x 39mm rounds and make available their components available for reloading, if the accuracy will improve on both the SKS and the AK. I believe the accuracy will improve, but not to the point of matching the AR, especially after 300 yds or so.
> 
> Frankly between the two weapons it boils down to personal preferences and circumstances. I own a AR and prefer it, but allot of that has to do with my familiarity with it from my time in the military. I own a SKS and think that it also is a fine weapon. I know that it's successor is even better, and it is on my list of rifles I would like to own, right behind the M1A and a Garand. Arguing which is better, an AR or an AK is similar to arguing which color is better, blue or green. Personal preference.


I agree. My preference is AR. I just don't like the feel and fit of an AK. I understand that the AK apparently has better penetration, but I know I can hit my target with an AR. I suppose I would get more proficient with an AK over time but why bother. As far as reaching out and touching a long distance target with a hing energy projectile, I like the 7.62 x 51mm. Because of weight, again I prefer the AR. Muscle memory, I instinctively know the controls, etc. MHO.


----------



## RogerD (Mar 31, 2014)

I have both a Glock 23 and a S&W 1911, love both each has it usages. I open carry my 1911 around the farm and conceal carry my Glock. I guess the main reason I favor my ak is the ammo I have for it, a couple thousand rounds of fmj ammo but it's the fmj steel core ammo the really makes the ak so nasty. It'll punch a hole in things the ar won't touch.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Every time I see an either or thread I think to myself, if by posting in this thread, will I be shooting myself in the right foot or the left foot. I usually end up shooting myself in both feet, so my advice garnered from much experience. Is A) don't post in an (either or) thread unless you want to be wrong. B) Both is usually the correct answer. C) It's nice to have choices and one should be thankful for that.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Seneca said:


> Every time I see an either or thread I think to myself, if by posting in this thread, will I be shooting myself in the right foot or the left foot. I usually end up shooting myself in both feet, so my advice garnered from much experience. Is A) don't post in an (either or) thread unless you want to be wrong. B) Both is usually the correct answer. C) It's nice to have choices and one should be thankful for that.


I'm just wondering what people like. There is nothing to be wrong about.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I like both of them. My AR 15 is in the trunk of the patrol car and does it's job well. I use the light on it constantly and it has an Aimpoint red dot sight. It is just very versatile. I could care less about which round is better 7.62x39 or 5.56/.223. I would prefer neither perforate me. My Npap is a blast to shoot and much cheaper to shoot than the AR. Ak magazines last a lifetime, AR magazines wear out pretty quickly. So for me, The AR15 is my go to rifle and the AK is probably my backup. 

I have sad news everyone....Like Slippy, my guns and ammo just suffered a tragic accident. While mountain climbing in Kansas they fell into a volcano off the coast of Kentucky.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I dislike anything that throws brass - that's why my "goto" guns are bolt action or revolvers.


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

csi-tech said:


> I like both of them. My AR 15 is in the trunk of the patrol car and does it's job well. I use the light on it constantly and it has an Aimpoint red dot sight. It is just very versatile. I could care less about which round is better 7.62x39 or 5.56/.223. I would prefer neither perforate me. My Npap is a blast to shoot and much cheaper to shoot than the AR. Ak magazines last a lifetime, AR magazines wear out pretty quickly. So for me, The AR15 is my go to rifle and the AK is probably my backup.
> 
> I have sad news everyone....Like Slippy, my guns and ammo just suffered a tragic accident. While mountain climbing in Kansas they fell into a volcano off the coast of Kentucky.


I have heard about that volcano. Thank goodness I live pretty far west of it. 
Thanks, you never know when you are having one of those days and something picks you up well this was it.
I needed a chuckle and this made me chuckle.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

PaulS said:


> I dislike anything that throws brass - that's why my "goto" guns are bolt action or revolvers.


I can't argue with you. Reloading will be a must. But the fire power of a semi-auto has certain advantages that could outweigh the disadvantages.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

I'm going to throw another analogy out there

comparing a ar to ak to SKS is like a ford vs chev vs Toyota debate

all comes down to personal taste, so as I said worry about learning how to shoot, then get what ever rifle you like/afford then loose it somewhere in the Pacific


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

If for no other reason Than current cost the AR. There are other reasons also but at todays cost the AR is a much better value.


----------



## ordnance21xx (Jan 29, 2014)

For range of 500 yards and availability of ammo AR-15. Parts and accessories Availability AR-15.


MOLON LABE


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

PaulS said:


> I dislike anything that throws brass - that's why my "goto" guns are bolt action or revolvers.


That is why you should have a brass catcher. They are pretty cheap and don't really get in the way .


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

firefighter72 said:


> Which do you guys think is better? I've herd the ups and downs on both, but I want to know your guys opinion on them. (or any other member of the ar/ak family)


The answer will likely depend on your perspective. The AK and AR are philosophically different in their designs. The AK was designed as a machine gun that could function as a rifle. The basic platform for the AR is a rifle that was adapted to function as a machine gun. So do you think a rifle adaptation of a machine gun is better than a firearm that was designed as a rifle from the start?


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Pir8fan said:


> The answer will likely depend on your perspective. The AK and AR are philosophically different in their designs. The AK was designed as a machine gun that could function as a rifle. The basic platform for the AR is a rifle that was adapted to function as a machine gun. So do you think a rifle adaptation of a machine gun is better than a firearm that was designed as a rifle from the start?


I dont understand the difference what do you mean?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Pir8fan said:


> The answer will likely depend on your perspective. The AK and AR are philosophically different in their designs. The AK was designed as a machine gun that could function as a rifle. The basic platform for the AR is a rifle that was adapted to function as a machine gun. So do you think a rifle adaptation of a machine gun is better than a firearm that was designed as a rifle from the start?


No. The Armalite was designed for selective fire from the beginning. Just like the Kalashnikov.
And semantics wise, a "machine gun" is a belt fed weapon. Which neither the AR or AK ever were.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

I hate these threads...AR/AK, FORD/CHEVY, WET/DRY, HOT/COLD...

Either one will work just fine and kill whatever you point it at with equal enthusiasm and ability.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> I hate these threads...AR/AK, FORD/CHEVY, WET/DRY, HOT/COLD...
> 
> Either one will work just fine and kill whatever you point it at with equal enthusiasm and ability.


Heck yeah.
When you get right down to it, I'd rather have a Winchester 94 in 30-30. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

I love this question because over the years it's made me look at from so many different angles. I think the first consideration has to be under what circumstances is one making this decision; square range target shooting, present day life or a SHTF scenario? If it's the latter and if I had unlimited ammo, mags, spare parts and high ground with big, open fields of fire, I'd have an M1A. Since my life/reality doesn't include the perfect castle to defend that's not my go to weapon.

I look around and see that the AR has become "America's Rifle" and that would have to weigh heavily in my decision. Parts, mags and ammo should be in abundant supply for that weapon and for me that's a HUGE selling point of why go with the AR. If was in Africa, I'd opt for the AK, otherwise, while I respect the heck out of AK's; I'd never own one personally. I'd also submit that a Ruger Mini, 14 or 30, should also be considered. Going back to the point of commonality though, these days most of your/my neighbors that have EBR's have AR's and if things ever get that bad - it will be real handy to have the common gun.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> No. The Armalite was designed for selective fire from the beginning. Just like the Kalashnikov.
> And semantics wise, a "machine gun" is a belt fed weapon. Which neither the AR or AK ever were.


That's right but the original concept of the AR was rifle based. Some of the original documents and comments by the two designers of the AR and AK make that clear. I also know that machine guns are belt fed but many do not and view full auto guns as machine guns.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Pir8fan said:


> That's right but the original concept of the AR was rifle based. Some of the original documents and comments by the two designers of the AR and AK make that clear. I also know that machine guns are belt fed but many do not and view full auto guns as machine guns.


If by "original concept" you meant Stoner's AR-10 chambered in .308, perhaps that could be true. But the AR-10 was a different design.
However, the AR-15 was designed from the beginning as a select fire weapon. Go to wikipedia and enter M16 rifle. Scroll down to History. Among other things you will find this: "Wyman had seen the AR-10 in an earlier demonstration and impressed by its performance he personally suggested that ArmaLite enter a weapon for testing using a 5.56mm cartridge designed by Winchester. Their first design, using conventional layout and wood furniture, proved to be too light. When combined with a conventional stock, recoil was excessive IN FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE (emphasis mine)." It goes on to examine the subsequent alterations and testing by the military before final acceptance.

What this boils down to is semantics. 
The original Russian designation for the AK-47 was Avtomat Kalashnikova, which translates as Automatic Rifle Kalashnikov.
Another excersize in semantics would be those who maintain that the term "pistol" only refers to semi automatic handguns and never ever could refer to a revolver.


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

bigdogbuc said:


> I hate these threads...AR/AK, FORD/CHEVY, WET/DRY, HOT/COLD...
> 
> Either one will work just fine and kill whatever you point it at with equal enthusiasm and ability.


 You boys stop it or I will turn around right now and we will go back home
Wouldn't the AK be better if you don't keep you gun clean?


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> If by "original concept" you meant Stoner's AR-10 chambered in .308, perhaps that could be true. But the AR-10 was a different design.
> However, the AR-15 was designed from the beginning as a select fire weapon. Go to wikipedia and enter M16 rifle. Scroll down to History. Among other things you will find this: "Wyman had seen the AR-10 in an earlier demonstration and impressed by its performance he personally suggested that ArmaLite enter a weapon for testing using a 5.56mm cartridge designed by Winchester. Their first design, using conventional layout and wood furniture, proved to be too light. When combined with a conventional stock, recoil was excessive IN FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE (emphasis mine)." It goes on to examine the subsequent alterations and testing by the military before final acceptance.
> 
> What this boils down to is semantics.
> ...


Ya but if I'm not mistaken didn't Kalashnikov get the design of the AK from the Nazis right after WW2? The Germans had made it first and called it the StG-44, and after the CCCP started its advances into Nazi Germany they stole the plans along with the plans for the rpg. Isn't the rumor or legend behind that?


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

They are both fine weapons and it comes down to personal preference.. I love the reliability of the AK just not the round. Actually, I don't LOVE the 5.56 either but do prefer it over the ak for an "all around" round. I much prefer an AR in a .308 platform to be honest. And like RPD stated, a "machine gun" is belt fed. I really hate how politicians and anti gun ****s call an AR a machine gun. That just goes to show they have no ****ing idea what they are talking about.. They call an AR-15 which is semi automatic a ****in machine gun!!! People like that should be smacked in the head with a hammer!!


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

For a number of reasons, I normally don't weigh in on these AK vs AR debates. Since this one seems to be mostly civil, and since nobody has challenged anybody else to a duel, I'll share my 2C.

I currently own and like both firearms. There are very good reasons that these two firearms have been the dominant military weapons of the age. 

The AR is accurate, ergonomic, shooter friendly (low recoil, lightweight, etc.), and can be accessorized to suit any user for just about any mission. However, because of its tight tolerances and its direct impingement gas operating system, the AR tends to be a bit finicky. They don't always reliably cycle cheap ammunition, they don't like to be dirty, and many shooters don't like the lightweight .224 bullet (especially for SHTF duty). 

The AK is incredibly simple, bullishly reliable, reasonably accurate, and performs well in even the most adverse conditions. They willingly cycle even the cheapest, dirtiest surplus ammunition, and they will keep sending lead downrange even if it hasn't been cleaned in decade. Many preppers (myself included) prefer the AK's larger 7.62mm bullet to AR's smaller 5.56mm bullet, as it allows one to harvest larger game than you could reliably take with a 5.56 platform rifle. However, because of the AK's loser tolerances, you won't be shooting silver dollar sized groups at a hundred yards. Also, AK's tend to be heavier than AR's, and you can't carry quite as much 7.62 x 39 and you can 5.56 x 45. 

In the end, AR's and AK's are very, very different rifles. One is a scalpel, the other is a cleaver. Understand the strengths and weakness of each platform, and don't ask either gun to do things they weren't designed to do (for instance, don't drag your AR out into cold, wet, muddy conditions and ask it to cycle cheap lacquered ammo when your life depends on it...and don't ask your AK to reliably knock down bad guys at 700 yards with iron sights). 

In truth, as much as I love both the AK and AR platforms, I probably wouldn't go with either rifle as my primary SHTF weapon. For a host of reasons, I would opt for a semi-auto, magazine fed rifle chambered in 7.62 x 51/.308. If I could only own one rifle, it would probably be a PTR-91 (GI model) with a nice 4-16x scope. 

Again, this is just my 2C.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

firefighter72 said:


> Ya but if I'm not mistaken didn't Kalashnikov get the design of the AK from the Nazis right after WW2? The Germans had made it first and called it the StG-44, and after the CCCP started its advances into Nazi Germany they stole the plans along with the plans for the rpg. Isn't the rumor or legend behind that?


The Sturmgewehr (StG-44) rifle was the first production combat rifle to be chambered for an "intermediate" rifle cartridge (the 7.93 x 33 Kurz), but it wasn't the direct predecessor of the AK-47 (which was also chambered for an "intermediate" rifle cartridge...the 7.62 x 39).

The StG-44 and AK-47 were similar in concept, but they were very different in practical design. Kalashnikov's design was much simpler, more robust, and much easier to manufacture (an absolute must for the soviet army) than the NAZI Sturmgewehr. The HK and CETME family of rifles are actually much more closely related to the StG-44 than the AK-47 is.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

There was a video years ago, called "Deadly Weapons" that explored various calibers and what they would or would not do. Did a search, can't find the darn thing. Really explains a lot about what certain bullets will and will not do. Just fyi, I'll keep looking. In one segment the guy from Second Chance shoots himself in the chest wearing their product with a 44 mag from point blank range. Really eye opening, If you happen to find the link before me, post it! First time I saw it, I thought, This is going to get ugly, he walked away. He actually gets shot with a 308 and walks away, cool video.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Is this it ?

Deadly Weapons (Weapons Demonstrations- auto, sup&#8230;: 




I like .308 but I could do with a .223 in a mini 14.
I have always liked the m1a and the ar-10 but the ar-10 is alot cheaper and will get the job done.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Dup post


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

How stupid am I, hit the post button 3 times? Yea, that's what I was talking about. Thanks. Long video, but worth the time, bookmark it watch when you can.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

I would like to add the another plus for the AR is it's flexibility. Take 30 seconds to change the upper group and you've got a different caliber. Want to add a scope, flashlight, bipod, or laser without drilling and tapping your firearm? No problem. It's flexibility is a major advantage.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Charles Martel said:


> The Sturmgewehr (StG-44) rifle was the first production combat rifle to be chambered for an "intermediate" rifle cartridge (the 7.93 x 33 Kurz), but it wasn't the direct predecessor of the AK-47 (which was also chambered for an "intermediate" rifle cartridge...the 7.62 x 39).
> 
> The StG-44 and AK-47 were similar in concept, but they were very different in practical design. Kalashnikov's design was much simpler, more robust, and much easier to manufacture (an absolute must for the soviet army) than the NAZI Sturmgewehr. The HK and CETME family of rifles are actually much more closely related to the StG-44 than the AK-47 is.


The functional designs between the two is very different, but the basic concept, the idea of an "assault weapon", the AK is a conceptual copy of the STG-44.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

Reptilicus said:


> Why not an AR-10, best of both worlds, longer range AND more punch! JMO I like more bang for my buck!


This bang will cost you several bucks. For the cost you can buy an AR an AK and a good used bolt action 308.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

I own both. The AR is more accurate, but if it comes down to defending my home I am not going to have a shot in excess of 150 yards anyway so the AK gets the nod for it's reliability and ability to make a bigger hole.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Somebody posted that they would prefer a 30-30 lever action earlier and I thought I might point out that the 30-30 and the 7.62X39 are ballistic twins. They will fire the same weight bullets at the same velocity. The lever action is also simple to operate and maybe just a little slower on the follow-up shots. I prefer a bolt action rifle - and for those of you who think you have to take them off your shoulder to cycle I am here to tell you that is not the case. I can shoot six eight inch plates in under six seconds with a bolt action rifle. I know people who can't do that with a semi-auto handgun.

It is less the weapon and mostly the shooter in any game you want to play. With a bolt action rifle or a revolver I will miss less often than most with a semi-auto. I freely admit that there are some who are good to outstanding in their use of semi-autos but I see a lot more who might as well be firing full auto because they do not know how to acquire a target and stay on target while shooting.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Todays Semi Autos are not your yesterday weapons they are much easier to control ,reliable,lighter and can shot with their bolt action brothers all other things being equal. 
Rapid fire takes training no way around that.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Smitty, that may be true but that little .224" diameter bullet doesn't have the range or the ability to buck the wind like a 165 grain boat tail soft point. Neither of the cartridges used (5.56 and 7.62x39) have the killing power of a 257 Roberts, 25-06, 308, 3006, 358 Winchester or any of the hunting rounds and magnums that are commonly used today. The cartridges are designed to wound a person so that three combatants are removed from the theater of battle for every one shot. Yes, they can kill but most often they wound and they design body armor to defeat these rounds not the 257 Roberts and more powerful cartridges. They are military cartridges designed for modern battlefields. Do you think that the second world war would have been won as quickly with these guns than it was with the 3006?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

No argument from me on shots out side 400 meters give me a 308 if I am allowed to pick. I can still hit 500 meters with the AR and Betting that a little range time I can get back to 600. But it is so much easier with my M24.
My point is that there are semi autos in 308 and other calibers now that will shoot with the bolt guns.


----------



## RogerD (Mar 31, 2014)

Well if its range you want, why not the ak's big brother....


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

My bolt guns will shoot better and longer without replacement parts than either the AK or AR. It will take me longer to fire as many rounds as the AK or AR but like I said, I will miss less than the average shooter shooting the semi-autos. 

I consider myself an average shooter - the only competition shooting I have done is metallic silhouette. (hunter's pistol with a revolver - and - small bore with a bolt action rifle)


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> No argument from me on shots out side 400 meters give me a 308 if I am allowed to pick. I can still hit 500 meters with the AR and Betting that a little range time I can get back to 600. But it is so much easier with my M24.
> My point is that there are semi autos in 308 and other calibers now that will shoot with the bolt guns.


Very true. 10-20 years ago a bolt gun was about the only thing you could shoot "true" long range with consistancy.. Now there are semi auto's (AR platforms mostly) that will do it. They are especially good for having to take out multiple targets.. It is amazing how far we have come in the past 10 years..


----------



## RogerD (Mar 31, 2014)

Got my sights set on this Century Arms all USA made ak.


----------



## Tennessee (Feb 1, 2014)

An HK AR. It's like having the best of both worlds.


----------



## ordnance21xx (Jan 29, 2014)

AR-15, common parts and Common ammo for use or trade. AR-15 has a range of about 600 yards and AK 47 has range of about 350 yards. you decide?


MOLON LABE


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

AR-15 for me. If nothing else, because the parts are interchangeable with most of the rifles used "in service" by various organizations.
If a collapse happens in this country, I'll be able to repair/replace parts and resupply from the spoils. Until AKs become a service weapon here, I can't justify the cost.
Nothing against the gun though. I hear great things.
I just have to make financial choices, so I choose the ones that I foresee a future for. (Glock, AR-15, and 92FS and 1911 to a large extent)


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Smitty, that may be true but that little .224" diameter bullet doesn't have the range or the ability to buck the wind like a 165 grain boat tail soft point. Neither of the cartridges used (5.56 and 7.62x39) have the killing power of a 257 Roberts, 25-06, 308, 3006, 358 Winchester or any of the hunting rounds and magnums that are commonly used today. The cartridges are designed to wound a person so that three combatants are removed from the theater of battle for every one shot. Yes, they can kill but most often they wound and they design body armor to defeat these rounds not the 257 Roberts and more powerful cartridges. They are military cartridges designed for modern battlefields. Do you think that the second world war would have been won as quickly with these guns than it was with the 3006?


The whole "designed to wound" thing is a fallacy. It was started by an anti-war reporter who stated that the Americans were using rounds meant to cause terrible wounds and tissue damage and not to kill. He said that as one of the points he was trying to make as to how cruel the American military was during the war, along with napalm and the bombing of Hanoi. No military would accept a round designed to wound and not kill. Notice that the Soviet Union when to a round very similar to the 5.56 MM.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

When a rifle is designed to barely stabilize a bullet that is being used it is either a target rifle or designed to upset on impact - that is a perfect wounding machine.
In war it is more effective to wound your opponent because it takes others to care for the wounded man and reduces the number of combatants in the field.
There is also a psychological effect that reduces morale. Having a fellow soldier yelling for help or screaming in pain causes mental injury to the other soldiers where having him dead just reinforces their drive to keep going.

There is nothing wrong with this type of gun and ammo in wartime - it follows the current conventions of war. When you take one of these guns/ammo to hunt with it is very bad news. The bullet penetrates and then turns sideways bouncing through the animal at strange angles without expanding at all. The 55 grain 5,56 ammo was famous for breaking into two pieces at the bullet crimp. This rarely caused a fatal wound but almost always made a very extreme internal wound. 

I am not saying it was the wrong thing to do. It was an excellent strategy that worked well - whether it was intended or not (it was). We can't use expanding bullets in war but they are the best killing bullets made - that is why hunting bullets are designed to expand. Since the inception of firearms use in war (but especially after the banning of expanding bullets) it has been known that a wounded soldier took two other fighters out of the fight. It makes sense to wound your opponent under these conditions. Things have changed with the 5,56 ammo with the introduction of the longer bullets. The twist has been tightened up to 1:8 which stabilizes the longer bullets for long range shooting. It will also stabilize the lighter bullets and keep them from tumbling on impact. That will make the 5,56 ammo pencil through a target now. That little 55 grain bullet is not likely to be nearly as effective as it has been in the past, however, it will be a better hunting gun with expanding bullets.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Fwiw, my thoughts at closer quarters/range is the ak. Most situation will be under 200m. If it's more than that a .308 bolt or SA is good for me. This is all personal preference. I wouldn't use an ak for much more than 300m. Need to use the right tool. 

I watched a video awhile back of an ar and ak being shot at barrels full of water. The 7.62 round went thru and thru. If you were behind the barrel you were dead. Not so with the 5.56 round. 

Again, all in preference.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I agree the designed to wound thing was a fallacy supported by propaganda.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I've not read any propaganda on the subject but I have read a few books on ballistics and what marginal stabilization does to bullets on impact. No one will convince me that the military was unaware of the characteristics of a marginally stabilized bullet. It would matter if it was a 55 grain .224 bullet or a 220 grain .30 caliber bullet. When marginally stabilized all bullets will yaw on impact. Just like a top as it spins down the bullet will wobble but since the bullet is traveling in a direction when it wobbles it changes direction. It is more likely to bounce of small bones and tough connecting tissue than to go through it because of the surface area and blunt surface the side of the bullet presents. 

As I stated earlier - It is a valid and accepted form of shooting an enemy. It is strategically better to would an enemy combatant than it is to kill him. That is a fact. The other part of this equation is training. If the military intended to kill with the rifle they would teach how to properly zero the rifle for its range of use. From what my brothers and friends (service and ex-service men) tell me, since Viet Nam the military only trains special forces and snipers to actually zero a weapon properly. The "run of the mill" GI doesn't have any clue how to zero his rifle.


----------



## MountainMan (Apr 4, 2012)

Sks...


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> When a rifle is designed to barely stabilize a bullet that is being used it is either a target rifle or designed to upset on impact - that is a perfect wounding machine.
> In war it is more effective to wound your opponent because it takes others to care for the wounded man and reduces the number of combatants in the field.
> There is also a psychological effect that reduces morale. Having a fellow soldier yelling for help or screaming in pain causes mental injury to the other soldiers where having him dead just reinforces their drive to keep going.
> 
> ...


It was never the "strategy" of the U.S. military to develop a main battle rifle designed more to wound then kill if needed. It is a FACT that the whole allegation was something that an anti-war reporter dreamed up to demonstrate how cruel the U.S. military is. That is a simple fact. If the military was more interested in wounding then killing the military would advocate aiming for the enemies abdomen and lower body. They don't. Also the standard 5.56 NATO round is either a 62 or 63 gr bullet, not a 55 gr.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> It was never the "strategy" of the U.S. military to develop a main battle rifle designed more to wound then kill if needed. It is a FACT that the whole allegation was something that an anti-war reporter dreamed up to demonstrate how cruel the U.S. military is. That is a simple fact. If the military was more interested in wounding then killing the military would advocate aiming for the enemies abdomen and lower body. They don't. Also the standard 5.56 NATO round is either a 62 or 63 gr bullet, not a 55 gr.


The 63 grain bullet is the standard today but when the system was introduced it was a 5x grain bullet with a 1:10 twist barrel. That barrel won't stabilize the 63 grain bullet at all - that is why they switched to the 1:8 twist.

It isn't less humane to wound a soldier. My goodness you give him a chance to go home and live his life. The bulk of the infantry is only taught to point and pull. As long as they hit anywhere on the target it counts in their score. They are not taught to aim - how do you aim with full auto or burst fire? I would be willing to bet that there are many infantrymen who have fired thousands of rounds in battle and never hit an enemy. Most hit someone somewhere but there is more luck than skill most often.

In WWII the military taught soldiers to shoot. I know that because I was taught by a Sargent who was my dad. My brother came out of boot camp telling me how he was admonished for zeroing his weapon before shooting. (and it NEEDED to be zeroed) If you have no training when you go in then you can't be expected to shoot well while you are in. There are those who know how to shoot and there are those who are decent shots but it has little to do with their military training unless they are special forces or snipers.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The 63 grain bullet is the standard today but when the system was introduced it was a 5x grain bullet with a 1:10 twist barrel. That barrel won't stabilize the 63 grain bullet at all - that is why they switched to the 1:8 twist.
> 
> It isn't less humane to wound a soldier. My goodness you give him a chance to go home and live his life. The bulk of the infantry is only taught to point and pull. As long as they hit anywhere on the target it counts in their score. They are not taught to aim - how do you aim with full auto or burst fire? I would be willing to bet that there are many infantrymen who have fired thousands of rounds in battle and never hit an enemy. Most hit someone somewhere but there is more luck than skill most often.
> 
> In WWII the military taught soldiers to shoot. I know that because I was taught by a Sargent who was my dad. My brother came out of boot camp telling me how he was admonished for zeroing his weapon before shooting. (and it NEEDED to be zeroed) If you have no training when you go in then you can't be expected to shoot well while you are in. There are those who know how to shoot and there are those who are decent shots but it has little to do with their military training unless they are special forces or snipers.


I don't know when or where your brother went in, but when I did we spent allot of time being trained on how to zero and zeroing our rifles before we fired them, and spent allot time on marksmenship. I think that claiming that the military is not trained in how to accurately fire their weapons is erroneous. I qualified Expert every year for the entire 20 years that I was in the Army.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

I'm a Brit so what the hell do i know about guns, but because the AR-15's 5.56mm bullet doesn't have the punch of the AK-47's 7.62, I think I'd plump for an AK if I had the choice.
HOWEVER if the AR-15 was fitted with a scope I'd take that instead because you can't hit anything with an un-scoped AK at longer ranges, or am I talking shite?

_left to right: 5.56, .30", 7.62_


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Notsoyoung,
I would bet that you got into the military before Viet Nam. That was back when time was spent on marksmanship. I had three brothers that joined the first two went into the army in 1970, the third joined the Marines in 1973. They all joined as infantry and the marine was switched to some kind of artillery until he lost his hearing. My oldest Brother retired as a major (sp?) in the army. Dad taught us to zero a rifle and how to shoot it. I still do a bit of shooting - at least three times a month - and even though the rifle is my weapon of choice I can put 5 shots from my 357 mag into an inch or less at 25 yards.

If I am mistaken about when you were in the military and you got good training then you are lucky. Or maybe my three brothers were just not at the right place. I can't even tell you where they went through basic at and the only thing I am sure of was the middle one went through AIT in "LowsyAnna". 

I tried three times to get my status changed - I was classified 4F but after the third time in front of the appeals board I was finally reclassified to 1Y. I still couldn't enlist but in the event of a war I could be drafted for state-side service only. I'm not sure whether I was lucky or not... I do know I would be a different person if I had gotten in back in 1969.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

LuckyJim,

The AK (7,62 x 39) round is no more powerful than a 30-30. The 5,56 round starts out faster than the AK, has greater range but loses its velocity fast. At the ranges that most would use either one I will be using a pistol or shotgun. I can easily kill a man at 100 yards with my 357 magnum - I practice at that range and closer. If I am using a rifle the range is from 100 yards and beyond - far beyond.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

PaulS said:


> ..The 5,56 round starts out faster than the AK, has greater range but loses its velocity fast..


So at longer ranges is the 7.62 better because it maintains its hitting power?
Another thing:- what if the enemy is behind light cover such as a wooden fence, is the 7.62 better at punching through it?
And how would a 5.56 do against a bulletproof vest compared to a 7.62?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> So at longer ranges is the 7.62 better because it maintains its hitting power?
> Another thing:- what if the enemy is behind light cover such as a wooden fence, is the 7.62 better at punching through it?
> And how would a 5.56 do against a bulletproof vest compared to a 7.62?


Jim,
The lowest grade vest for rifles are designed to stop the 7,62x39 round but it depends on the distance, the bullet used, and the vest in place. 
The 5,56 round may or may not penetrate the same vest that will stop a 7,62 round but remember that there is no such thing as a bullet proof vest - only bullet resistant vests. For instance; a vest that can "stop" a 357 magnum may not be any good against a 140 grain FMJ 9 mm that is 66% as fast as the 357. Vests vary. Bullets are constructed differently. Distance is the great deceiver; Just because you are closer doesn't mean that your bullet will be more effective. Sometime a bullet will penetrate a vest if it is traveling slower but not faster. It depends on the construction of the vest and bullet.

A wooden fence is concealment but it is not going to stop a bullet. A mild 22 rimfire will go through a 3/4" pine fence at 100 yards and at 25 it can kill you standing behind it. Cover is anything that can stop the bullet from getting to you but concealment is something that prevents you from being seen - it also makes it hard for you to see. A rock that is 5 feet in diameter might be considered cover under most conditions but I broke a granite boulder that big in half with three shots from my 30-06 using military armor piercing rounds. In three shots it split like a grapefruit and each piece fell off to the sides. My 357 maximum (the magnums bigger brother) put three holes through a piece of T1 steel 3/8" thick at seventy-five yards. It was a gong that was made for the 357 mag. The weird part was the bullets didn't even make the gong swing - just cut right through it. I thought I had missed until we got close enough to see the holes. It was a perfect little cloverleaf about 3/4" in diameter - off-hand (no support) from 75 yards away. That was the last time we used the maximums on those gongs.

There was an incident where a police officer took a round from a shotgun slug (a soft lead bullet) and the vest stopped the slug but the vest penetrated his chest breaking his sternum. It would have been much worse without the vest but he still needed surgery for the wound and to remove fragments of his sternum and the vest.

Bullet "proof" vests aren't bullet proof and unless they are kept dry and in good condition they are little more than a weight to slow you down. A person can shoot over, under, or beside the vest and kill you just as easily as if you had a t-shirt on. The places to shoot when body armor is in play are:

The head, neck, knees, elbows, hands and feet. Those areas are never well protected and the head and neck are vital kill zones. (even with a 22)


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

Every rose has its thorn so goes the saying and I definitely think that applies here. I have both! Both are pretty awesome in their own respects. I personally think the AR is better in more respects than its not. I think where the AR definitely trumps the AK is the fact that the AR is truly a Weapons System, not just a rudementry fire arm. With a 16 inch barrel installed is a good close quarters battle gun, put a 24 inch bull barreled upper on it and you can quickly start doing some long range precision work although the 5.56 does a leave a bit to be desired when it comes to long range and penetration potential. But then if you need more of that there is the .300 Whisper/Blackout, 6.5 Grendel or if you need a real thumper for close range the .458 SOCOM. I have one in .300 Whisper, 6mmx45, 5,56 and love this gun to death as far as a general purpose weapon. Yes it does need to be cleaned a little more and yes it does need to be ran with a little more lubrication, no it doesnt hit as hard or as far as the 7.62x51, but it is very accurate to 400 or so yards, does well on soft tissue targets inside that range and yes its a bit lacking in penetration. Its a jack of many trades although a master of few but over all I think its about as verstal of a weapon system as is out there at the moment. In 6mm x 45, its tough to beat having a good balance of power and bullet weight, unless your shooting through brick walls or at a charging Cape Buffalo.


----------



## Tennessee (Feb 1, 2014)

see below


----------



## Tennessee (Feb 1, 2014)

Lucky Jim said:


> So at longer ranges is the 7.62 better because it maintains its hitting power?
> Another thing:- what if the enemy is behind light cover such as a wooden fence, is the 7.62 better at punching through it?
> And how would a 5.56 do against a bulletproof vest compared to a 7.62?





PaulS said:


> LuckyJim,
> 
> The AK (7,62 x 39) round is no more powerful than a 30-30. The 5,56 round starts out faster than the AK, has greater range but loses its velocity fast. At the ranges that most would use either one I will be using a pistol or shotgun. I can easily kill a man at 100 yards with my 357 magnum - I practice at that range and closer. If I am using a rifle the range is from 100 yards and beyond - far beyond.


FYI

ABERDEEN, Md. (Army News Service, May 6, 2011) -- Since June, the Army has fielded about 30 million of its new 5.56mm M855A1 "Enhanced Performance Rounds" in Afghanistan.

The cartridge, sometimes called the "green bullet" because it has an environmentally-friendly copper core instead of the traditional lead, has been getting mostly good reviews in the 11 months since it first deployed to Operation Enduring Freedom.

"The vast majority of everything we've got back from the field is positive," said Lt. Col. Jeffrey K. Woods, product manager, small caliber ammunition, during a "media day" at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

During the day-long event, reporters learned the benefits of the new cartridge, witnessed a demonstration of the round, compared to the round it is designed to replace, and had the opportunity to fire the round from both an M16 and M4 rifle.

Perhaps the biggest plus of the M855A1 "enhanced performance round" is the consistency it brings to the fight -- more so than the 5.56mm M855 round it is designed to replace.

Woods and other officials were reticent to talk specifically about the effects of the new bullet, or any bullet, on a "soft target" -- a euphemism for enemy personnel. But what they made clear was the M855A1 is at least equal to the M855 on a soft target -- but that it did damage with more consistency.

The M855 is a good round, Woods said, but it is "yaw dependant." Like all bullets, it wobbles when it travels along its trajectory. Its effectiveness depends on its yaw angle when it hits a target. Not so with the M855A1. The new Enhanced Performance Round, or EPR, is not yaw-dependant -- it delivers the same effectiveness in a soft target no matter its yaw angle.

"On M855's best day, with that great performance that you will see, you're going to see that type of performance out of the EPR -- but you will see it every time," Woods said.

The EPR cartridge is the same length as the M855 that it's designed to replace, though the bullet it contains is about 1/8 of an inch longer. The weight and shape of the EPR is also the same as the M855, so it fits anything an M855 fits -- including the M16 and the M4 it was designed for.

The bullet itself has been redesigned completely. It features a larger steel "penetrator" on its tip, that is both sharper than what is on the M855 and is also exposed. Both bullets feature a copper jacket, but the EPR's jacket is "reverse drawn" -- part of its manufacturing. Perhaps the most notable feature of the EPR is that its bullet features a copper core, verses the M855's lead core.

There's also a new propellant in the EPR, designed to enhance its performance in the M4 Carbine rifle -- what most Soldiers are carrying today in Afghanistan.

The M4 has a shorter barrel than the M16 rifle, and barrel length is directly related to a bullet's velocity.

"The M855 leaving an M16 had a higher muzzle velocity than when it left the M4," Woods said. "Because the M16 is the longer barrel, you get the full burn of the powder, pushing a bullet to its maximum velocity before it left the barrel."

On an M4, however, the M855 bullet might leave the barrel before its powder is completely burned -- that means the bullet isn't getting the full benefit of all the powder contained in its shell and an increased muzzle flash.

"A longer-burning propellant is still burning when the round is leaving the barrel and you are going to get a brighter flash, which is obviously not good for Soldiers," Woods said.

Both of those issues have been addressed with the M855A1.

The SMP-842 propellant in the EPR burns quicker, ensuring less muzzle flash in the M4, and also meaning improved muzzle velocity.

*The performance of the EPR against soft targets is the same as that of the M855 -- but it is more consistent. The new round is also "superior to 7.62mm M80 against soft targets," Woods said. But at the same time the new "green round" is more Earth-friendly than both the M855 and the M80 -- it is also more effective than either of them against hard targets.

A test fire an Aberdeen Proving Ground range pitted the M855A1 round against the M855 and the M80 in multiple weapons -- the two 5.56mm rounds were fired in both the M4 and the M16, and the 7.62 M80 round was fired in an M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle. All three rounds are use today.

In all test firings against a sheet of 3/8-inch mild steel plate at 300 meters, the M855A1 came out on top.

Test center video also showed the EPR to be equally superior against concrete masonry units -- similar to cinder block. The M855A1 was able to penetrate such a block up to about 75 meters with the M16, and up to about 50 meters with the M4. The M855 was unable to penetrate the blocks at those ranges.
*
Wood said Soldiers have been told to turn in M855 cartridges and switch now to EPR. In February, he said, was the first time there's been more expenditure in theater with the EPR than with the M855.

The round is effective, Woods said, and testing at Aberdeen has shown that to be true -- against realistic testing targets. But the round can't be effective against enemy combatants unless Soldiers use it in their weapons -- and they need to trust that it works before they will want to use it.

Staff Sgt. Jason Hopkins, of the Maneuvers Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, Ga., has served four years in Afghanistan and two years in Iraq. He's seen combat, and confirms that while there he's used his weapon against "soft targets." He was one of the Soldiers at Aberdeen who test fired the new round -- and says he's convinced.

"We were a little skeptical -- like any change in the military, a little skeptical," Hopkins said of the EPR. "But coming up here and shooting it and seeing the performance of it -- I'm sold on it. The trajectory and the ballistics are just as good as the M855 and the penetration is far superior to the M855."

"It looks like just a more consistent round," he continued. "With the M855 you may not always get the same thing -- but everything we've seen with this EPR has been dead consistent every time."

As far as the new round's accuracy, Hopkins said, "It's on par if not better."

Woods said testing shows the EPR does produce a tighter shot group -- by about 2 inches at 600 meters.

As far as "stopping power" of the new round, Hopkins clarified what that term means to him -- and confirmed his faith that the round would do its job when he might be required to use it.

"Stopping power is incapacitation of a target so he cannot engage me or continue his mission," Hopkins said. "I haven't used the EPR in that situation yet, but I've used the M855. It's been effective. It's an effective round. But I truly believe the M855A1 will be more consistent."

Pvt. 1st Class Scott Lafferty, 1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, has served once in Iraq. He was also a tester at Aberdeen. When he talks to other Soldiers about the effectiveness of the round, he said he's going to tell them what he learned during his test experience.

"I'm going to tell them how we've shot both different kinds of rounds and how the M855A1 is superior and they can test for themselves and find out," Lafferty said. He said that a weapon's effectiveness is largely dependent on a Soldier's training, but added, "I am confident the bullet will do what I've seen here today, and yesterday."


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Notsoyoung,
> I would bet that you got into the military before Viet Nam. That was back when time was spent on marksmanship. I had three brothers that joined the first two went into the army in 1970, the third joined the Marines in 1973. They all joined as infantry and the marine was switched to some kind of artillery until he lost his hearing. My oldest Brother retired as a major (sp?) in the army. Dad taught us to zero a rifle and how to shoot it. I still do a bit of shooting - at least three times a month - and even though the rifle is my weapon of choice I can put 5 shots from my 357 mag into an inch or less at 25 yards.
> 
> If I am mistaken about when you were in the military and you got good training then you are lucky. Or maybe my three brothers were just not at the right place. I can't even tell you where they went through basic at and the only thing I am sure of was the middle one went through AIT in "LowsyAnna".
> ...


1974 -1994, basic at Ft. Leonardwood, infantry AIT at Ft. Polk, La.... I find it hard to believe that ANY one went through basic training and tried to qualify without even zeroing their weapons. If you couldn't qualify, you didn't get through basic. Without zeroing your weapon it would be pretty tough to hit the targets at 250 and 300 meters. I qualified at least once every year that I was in, and every time we verified our zero's before qualifying. Maybe things have changed since I got out, which I doubt, but it is mandatory that you qualify every year. I you are unable to do you are barred from re-enlisting.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Tennessee said:


> FYI
> 
> ABERDEEN, Md. (Army News Service, May 6, 2011) -- Since June, the Army has fielded about 30 million of its new 5.56mm M855A1 "Enhanced Performance Rounds" in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


This is very interesting. It would seem to defy logic that a 5.56 round would have better penetration then a 7.62 x 51MM. I really hope they make these rounds available to the public soon, I would like to give them a try. Also, if these are some new design for bullets, how about other calibers. If it improves the 5.56 penetration, what would it do for my 30-06? Like I said, it's very interesting.


----------

