I'm sure we've all seen a million of these threads,

File: mil_rifle_wounds.jpg (62KB, 586x750px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 586x750px

Ak
>Lower speed, higher drag
>more force on impact (better penetration)
>less accurate at longer ranges
>more simple, more reliable
>less picky on ammo
>muh durability

Ar
>Higher speed, lower drag
>less force on impact (less penetration)
>more accurate at longer ranges
>more complex parts, higher chance of malfunction
>some variants don't like some ammos
>Muh 'merican quality

File: Men+preffer+military+waifus+center+big3+https+wwwfacebookcom+groups+iowgroup+big3+center+center+big3+https+myanimelistnet+anime+32686+keijo+big3+center+trigger+large+stats+mentionlist_2af651_6132326.jpg (166KB, 900x848px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 900x848px

>>32851179
thanks, man.

I'd always thought that the penetration bit was that 5.56 and 5.45 would penetrate soft targets better and be more likely to stop within them while the 7.62x39 would be more likely to bust through cover and concealment while maintaining lethal potential. Is it the case that 7.62x39 penetrates better across the board?

Also important would be logistics, I think. The ability to carry a shitload more ammo for the same weight and simplification by having many guns and many fireteam roles use the same ammo.

>>32851179
(Cont) the AK can be compared to a hammer. It gets the job done, but there are much better tools for a specific task. It's good at what is was designed for.

The ar can be compared to a power drill. It's more sophisticated and is more carefully put together. A precision instrument, but not like that of a bolt action or hunting rifle. It's more designed for precise shots where the traditional AK is more for suppression

>>32851254
7.62 is a bigger bullet with more momentum. Therefore it will naturally penetrate better than a smaller projectile with less momentum. There's always exceptions to this though, as bullet tip and velocity are a key factor. But generally speaking the bigger the bullet, the harder it will hit and penetrate.

File: Cosplay_3d746d_6137328.jpg (78KB, 512x768px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 512x768px

>>32851308
Gotcha. Thanks. I thought there was something about the twist rate, higher velocity, and solid core of the 5.56 making it defeat armor lethally more effectively whereas the 7.62x39 would be more likely to flatten although it would certainly knock you on your ass, for example.

>>32851055

AK is the most overrated weapon of all time. It's reliability became legendary simply because the ammunition used in the M16's early days wasn't enough to cycle the bolt properly, and the 1st rifles weren't rifled for 62 grain bullets, which caused tumbling and inaccuracy

Those problems were fixed 40 years ago. The DI system is just as reliable as any piston system, it just requires you to do a bit of maintenance after 500 rounds or so. That's really the only difference in "reliability". One needs cleaned more often. that's it.

The 5.56 might not have as much "power" behind it, but it's accurate. the bullet simply flies better. M16 has less recoil, less muzzle climb, and a much, much flatter trajectory, making it easier to engage different ranges without really worrying about adjusting elevation. Dial an M16 in at 200 meters and you're good to go from 0 to 325 without any kind of holdover. The ergos are way better, and it's stupid easy to operate the controls, unlike the AK's sometimes notorious 10lb safety.

The trigger is better. The recoil system is better. it's more accurate. the controls/ergos are better. it's more controllable at a high rate of fire. it's lighter. the ammo is lighter. it's modular design makes maintenance and parts replacement a breeze. it's easier to add on things like a grenade launcher, optics, lights and lasers.

M16/M4/AR15 is just better. That's not to say AK47 is "bad". It's still a rifle that goes bang when you pull the trigger, and it does indeed get the job done.... it's just is't as good as Stoner's design.

all this you hear about "suppression" is meaningless too. suppressive fire is best done by belt fed LMGs and such. M16s are decent for suppressive fire simply because they're accurate. a steady stream of accurate, continuous rifle fire from 4-6 rifleman is about as good as an LMG. AK47 isn't very accurate and on full auto? it's a joke.

>>32851423
This rings true to me and I appreciate the input man.

>>32851055
People less educated about ballistics and have less money prefer the AK. I can't blame them I guess.

We forgive you, for you know not what you do.

File: AK build.png (95KB, 1818x741px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1818x741px

>>32852136
The main thing I like about the AK is that its so worked on and with that the parts will never, ever disappear. Something like 100 million variants worldwide currently floating around as opposed to the M16's roughly 8 million, although that also is nothing to sneeze at.

It's the same thing that drew me to the car I chose. There's no way that no matter what state I go in, noone will be able to work on it or be able to get parts. Crown Vic, if you're curious.

At the same time, the AR15 seems like such a tidy, neat little package. I don't own an AK but have designs for one drawn up but I plan on getting a Springfield Armory Saint and making some changes first. Probably an RRA Match carry handle and Magpul MOE handguard and UBR stock.

Pictured is the AK build I designed. Ended up being very expensive, which is part of why it was shelved. Maybe someday, but until then the AR15 is just a better choice. For $200 more than a "good AK" I can get a great AR15 by 90% of testimony.