Two of the three pedophile terrorists shot by Kyle Rittenhouse died almost immediately. The third, "Lefty", is permanently much less dangerous to normal people. That's a pretty good percentage for a kid. I'll vote "AR-15 for the kill".
Posted on 01/29/2021 6:16:46 AM PST by Onthebrink
BINGO! AK!
AR has better long-range accuracy.
AK is easier to maintain (which may become important if you can’t go to a licensed gunsmith for repairs because your gun is on the banned list) and generally more reliable.
AK appears to have better stopping power.
Hey Sax! Take a hike!!
“Ever since the Vietnam War, and the debate still continues....”
*************
If the comparison was made back in the sixties then the winner would be hands down the AK-47. But, over the past fifty years there has been continuous improvement made on the M-16 and its variants. So, if doing a comparison on today’s models I vote for the M-16.
Failing States can't fight external wars.
I don't like blogpimps. Do you?
They were running out of funding.
Also it was easier to hold and fire for younger Soldier training.
Just off handed thoughts on why they would swap from the 7.62x39 which as someone mentioned, is a killer not a wound maker.
Blessings
In ain’t the rifle that makes the difference. It’s the man behind it.
Yup. Bigger round,more powder and a perfect aim.
I’m selective on which blimps I like/dislike. On this subject of blog pimping, there needs to be a way to pull the data to FR, and then we access it on FR sans the hits to the blog. But, I suspect there may be legal issues with that.
Plenty of GIs threw down their M-16 when they were able to get hold of an AK-47. I never heard of any enemy combatant throwing down his AK-47 when he was able to secure an M-16.
Thanks for a more reasonable response. I agree, I check posting history, and it’s pretty obvious who are just posting here for hits.
hmmss Yes, though I suppose it comes down to selective single shot or spray and pray.
Many eons ago I used to have the chinese milled version of the AK, beat the AK hands down as at time I owned both.
USED to go prarie dog hunting a lot, and most the time was standing unsupported, 200yards iron sights was not a hard task, we at that time it was ok by my count. ;-)
Blessings
And no, I’m not trying to take Humblegunner’s place. 8~)
The Nazis started the trend of trading full battle rifle firepower for more rounds and control offered by an intermediate cartridge.
Talk to soldiers who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, ask them about going up against the AK47. All I can say is I have had that discussion.
Currently it comes down to which one I have a reliable source of ammunition for. For the AK I can cast my own bullets out of still easily obtainable and if using a bullet trap at the range - reusable lead. I heat treat the bullets and make my own gas checks. The brass can be re-used multiple times, and fortunately we have enough powder and primers to last for a long time.
ARs shoot at a higher velocity and require factory made copper clad bullets, they are currently expensive and hard to find. The entire 7.62x39mm cartridge can be assembled for a quarter of the price of just the projectile alone for the 5.56x45mm. I am a cheap skate and did not stock up on these projectiles. So at this time there is no debate which one I will be taking to the range.
I wouldn't say the Nazis "started," it. They just took a different approach then the US did with the M1 Carbine. Two different weapons with two different intents, but in many regards, both ended up filling the same niche.
Two of the three pedophile terrorists shot by Kyle Rittenhouse died almost immediately. The third, "Lefty", is permanently much less dangerous to normal people. That's a pretty good percentage for a kid. I'll vote "AR-15 for the kill".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.