Why should i buy an AK over an AR/M4?

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by krazykozmetics

I too have both. I bought the Ak first, and then got my ar. The ak is a mil surplus gun. The ar is still being produced. I figured that their will be Ar for sale long after aks become rare. I love both, I could not pick one over the other. They are both ver addicting, and should both have surgeons general warings.lol

AKs are still being produced too, and will be till times end.

[krazykozmetics]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

AKs are still being produced too, and will be till times end.

wow i didnt know that, I havent seen a new one anywhere. More info would be great. All i have seen are used ones.

[einheit 13]

Siaga and Arsenal are new guns. WaSR from Century are new guns.....Zastava is still making them, so does Sako/Valmet....

[krazykozmetics]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

Siaga and Arsenal are new guns. WaSR from Century are new guns.....Zastava is still making them, so does Sako/Valmet....

So the yugo underfolds are new??

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by krazykozmetics

So the yugo underfolds are new??

No, they are used kit guns, unless you spring for the M95s, 90% of those are unfired kits or unissued rifles that have been demil'd

[Uller_XD]

I've heard people who both love and hate them as theyve served on opposite sides of many conflicts. The one thing that fan and critic alike have said time and again "You drop em water, dirt, sand, whatever ... just pick it up and keep shootin." A vietnam vet who absolutely hated them told me that. Everybody respects them. Thats the factor that pulled me to buy mine cheap ammo, the swagger factor, and the fact that some jerk is always either badmouthing or trying to ban it almost all the time were just additional selling points.

[Ishpeck]

Originally Posted by Uller_XD

Thats the factor that pulled me to buy mine cheap ammo, the swagger factor, and the fact that some jerk is always either badmouthing or trying to ban it almost all the time were just additional selling points.

That's adorable.

[ZenMachine]

More fuel to the fire:

Many question effectiveness of bullets used by U.S. Army

By Richard Lardner
The Associated Press

Published: May 27, 2008 12:00AM
Story Tools

• E-mail Story
• Printable Version
• © Info

Font size:DecreaseResetIncrease
SPONSORED BY:


Advertisement


WASHINGTON — As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.
As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.
“Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice,” says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. “It just has more stopping power.”
Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the United States.
The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to interviews.
Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier’s helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today’s fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today’s battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.
In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.
Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say.
“If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn’t matter what you shoot him with,” said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga.
At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a AAA battery.None of the M855’s shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia.
“The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn’t do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are lightly equipped and clothed,” says Alexander.
Paul Howe was part of a U.S. military task force 15 years ago in Mogadishu, Somalia’s slum-choked capital, when he saw a Somali fighter hit in the back from about a dozen feet away with an M855 round.
“I saw it poof out the other side through his shirt,” says Howe, a retired master sergeant and a former member of the Army’s elite Delta Force. “The guy just spun around and looked at where the round came from. He got shot a couple more times, but the first round didn’t faze him.”
With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds, said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a soldier might get.
“The bullet is just not big enough,” he says. “If I’m going into a room against somebody that’s determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible.”
Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel — too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body.
“The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it’s going to fragment,” says Fackler. “Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It’s that simple.”
Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat.

[yeahYeah]

AR's are nice - like the SUV of "evil assault rifles", but AK's are more evil, more sinister, more powerful, cheaper and yes, libs hate them. AK's are like rugged jeeps.

[tomfoolery]

Because i said so.....