YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
This dude reliably hits:
- White colored targets on white backgroun
- Torso sized, not full body
- With iron sights
- On an AK pattern
- Firing 7.62x39mm
- To 425 yards!
What the fuck is your excuse!!!?
Imagine what's possible with visible targets, optics, 5.45mm, on one of the newer AKs!
Oh wow it's almost like the rifle is fine, as per its intended design.
Uncle Sam meets Mother Russia?
He has a point, niggas be trifling.
The reason you can't hit anything with 7.62x39 is that 300m is the max distance it's supposed to be used.
The AK-47 was designed as a SMG first and foremost and the round to have the same ballistic behavior as 7.62 Tokarev but bringing more power at the end of it's flight envelope for enhanced lethality.
The Sig 550 is an AK (per the Swiss own admittance) and it's a 1 MOA assault rifle.
Sure Swiss manufacturing is near perfection but the 5.6 match grade ammo is what makes the big difference. If it was really the design, like on say a Ruger Mini-14, you just couldn't do that.
>zero your rifle
>learn how the cartridge behaves
What's the point of posting this video? None of this information should be new to any actual gun owners here.
To the old gun culture and military, of course, this is old basic shit. I think the problem is a lot of these New School kids and city folks often times never shoot beyond 25-100 yards and never learn hold overs or the Kentucky WIndage. Also "optics" are such a fucking hot thing some kids have almost never shot iron sights, may have never shot iron sights, and some are under the spell that you can't hit anything over 100 yards with iron sights; scopes of some sort are NECESSARY to hit anything at any distance!
Before you know it you have people that have no experience in bullet drift and drop, don't know what a dope table is. Think that without a super marksmen rifle with full magnification scope that anything at range is magic or luck when hitting. People who are used to blasting man sized targets at 50 paces are lost to a world of those of us who shoot at pop cans at 100 yards. This also leads to reduced standards which leads to lax shooting discipline because of low expectation, they sit and blast a large target at closer range and consider themselves good, they don't shoot at longer range against smaller targets or on paper and miss, get scores and groups that aren't good enough and make you buckled down and actually get better, force yourself to improve. Mediocrity and pride, not an ever driving push to improve towards as perfect as you can be as a man, the humility to make it happen.
The kids who fuck up and don't shoot well and need to buy a new gun or a new optic, not realizing or taking the hit to the ego that its THEM and THEY fucked up. Its always the ammo, the gun, the sights. Too many people blaming the AK47 when its the problem int he AK47 shooter. But you can't tell the kids that.
Isn't Rob Ski a designated marksman?
I'm so nearsighted I can't reliably hit shit at 100 yards without magnification. That's with my glasses and I'm not even 30.
I live in a b& state, I fly under the radar with this one.
That actually looks semi decent.
What a shit thread, 4chan has finally taken over it seems.
All you did was post an (old) video and repeat all the talking points of said video. Is there an original thought in that empty skull of yours?
If this is the case then what is the point of posting the video here? If he wants to educate the ignorant so badly he should go to 4chan, and stay there.
Thank you Bonsai /k/ommando. I have plans with a local machinist to adapt a Magpul shotgun stock in place of the factory Saiga one. With that I can throw a riser on it and turn my chin wield into a cheek wield.
Yeah. Not sure if the trigger can be reached from the grip, but it looks OK. Tons better than any featureless AR I've seen.
But what's the distance between your eye and the magnifier?
>None of this information should be new to any actual gun owners here.
The point is when all that is done, the AK is quite good as a platform. Both AKM and M16 rifles being zeroed properly, using iron sights in similar environmental conditions, max out at the point-effective range of the human eyeball around 450m, and can probably suppress to twice that range. It completely kills the myth that 7.62x39 AK is "made" for illiterate peasants and only to shoot at a certain range, for example this people in this thread saying AK is just a SMG.
>no pistol grip
Land of the "free"
>when you're just going to shoot at targets at less than 100 ft away
<hurr durr all modern wars will just be in cities XD burp durr hurr
This post gave me autism.
>military rifles hitting targets at intended range
GLORY TO PUTIN COMRADE
AS YOU OF CAN SEE MORE WESTERN IMPERIALIST LIES
AK NOT PROBLEM, WEAK WESTERN NOODLE-ARM PROBLEM
I get off on the station where the train hit "suppress at twice that range". One of the fundamental problems of those cartridges is that stability begins to falter and longer range accuracy become so spotty it isn't even ballpark suppression range of closeness. Maybe a light machine gun in those intermediates can have some sort of chance at 900-1000 yards or meters simply because you can spray down enough lead to see where those bullets are landing and adjust, either by bullet impacts (if you can see them) or tracers. The battle rifle cartridge isn't just a better cartridge to hit with at longer range, its a better suppression round at further ranges as well, the close the hits the better the suppressive effect. Also intermediate's poorer barrier penetration at longer ranges, its not a 200 yard only cartridge but its certainly not built for 600 in any real capacity either.
The US military itself said the whole 200 yard engagement issue was a real thing, its not so much a myth, its part of real combat and how the general modern solider, often a conscript, fights. Especially in WW3 when most of your troops are poorly trained conscripts, which was what those rifles were being designed for. Its not a SMG, but then again it truly is an assault rifle made for 500 yard or less combat in the types of combat they expect in total war, and in there estimates more like 200-300 where the average drafted flunky will see and shoot.
The AK is a decent design, but the cartridge and the entire gun is, absolutely, a short range assault rifle in every part of the cartridge and final product. With the idea tens of millions would be produced to arm tens of millions of semi illiterate factory workers and peasants.
You are right, but you are wrong.
>The AK is a decent design
АВТОМАТ КАЛАШНИКОВА IS THE BEST DESIGN
Oh wow gay wouldn't even do the little accents.
>The AK is a decent design, but the cartridge and the entire gun is, absolutely, a short range assault rifle in every part of the cartridge and final product. With the idea tens of millions would be produced to arm tens of millions of semi illiterate factory workers and peasants.
And this is exactly why I made this thread, because these dumb fudd myths keep persisting. You're also wrong about bullet drop being a huge issue, it's actually a benefit in a lot of cases because you can fire around the curve of obstacles and thereby protect yourself from direct fire.
I'll TL;DR you by saying: Suppressed fire is aimed fire. A lot of people forget this, and although both of those rounds can reach maximum ranges in 500+ meters, the fact of the matter is that 5.56x45 has too little momentum to fly straight (even at shorter distances, often, especially if you're using less than 20") and 7.62x39 rapidly destabilises as it goes transsonic. That means neither one can reliably hit point of aim past those distances anyway, and good external ballistics are unlikely with either as well. As you said, a machine gun can be a slight benefit, but it's not like an M249 or an RPD is a magic wand. They still wind up with bullets drifting or landing sideways.
I guess that's not really a TL;DR. I suck dicks.
Volley and indirect fire requires more knowledge of the gun than the fudds and underages being talked about, Strelok. Someone who can't shoot at 100 meters because of muh drop certainly won't be able to visualise a target past the horizon or over cover. This is precisely why 9x39mm is such a great long distance cartridge, though, it uses extremely high momentum to take advantage of its rainbow trajectory. I should have updated the thread before making my last post.
If he can demonstrate it with a gun that is a bit difficult (mostly due to its irons) to hit with at that range, then it will work for 99% of all combat rifles.
Why bother. Riley Defense makes ak's in the US.
Went to a gun show on the 19th, saw this. Held it. Lightest ak you will ever hold. Only beef is the one they were selling had a weak safety. Otherwise I'd probably be holding it rn.
Hello newfried you can embed, please delete this post fast and redo it unless you want to be bullied by everybody
Riley Defense is trash.
>Sig 550 is an AK
True, the gas system is AK derived but the reason why the Sig is accurate is because it has a better built and longer barrel (on the standard service length model) paired with good sights and it fires a cartridge meant for accuracy.
>The AK-47 was designed as a SMG first and foremost and the round to have the same ballistic behavior as 7.62 Tokarev
Fuck off with this retarded meme, Ian, the AK was not designed as an SMG, it just so happens that some of the firearms Kalashnikov was designing before the AK were SMGs, and he partially used those as the basis for the AK when the 7.62x39mm cartridge was introduced, but that doesn't mean the AK was designed to be an SMG from the get go.
If 7.62x39mm was designed to be an SMG cartridge, why was it adopted in the RPD and SKS first? Years before the AK?
>It's American made.
>It's not trash.
I'm having flashback to fucking cuckchan here, who the fuck says AK cannot be accurate?
>If 7.62x39mm was designed to be an SMG cartridge, why was it adopted in the RPD and SKS first?
Tbh, PPSh was often used for suppressive fire before that.
>Both bullets have the same trajectory up to 200m
>The AK was part of the trio LMG -> RPD, replacing DP-26, Rifle -> SKS, replacing the SVT, has bureaucratically speaking it was the soviet infantry rifle with the Mosin being the reserve rifle, SMG -> AK, replacing the PPSh and the PPS.
>"IT WAS NOT DESIGNED AS AN SMG".
Yes it was.
They realized from the war experience that the average soviet infantrymen was perfectly incapable to shoot his rifle accurately past 300m, largely for biological reasons (it's hard to spot a black standing target at that range, now imagine it's someone actively trying to not get shot) so why in the name of fuck would you bother with giving soldiers a full powered round that's only gonna make them miss even more? Meanwhile they also knew that at that range VOLUME of fire is what matters as all the soldiers and field commanders where clamoring for more SMGs, to the point you had entire regiments (shock regiments) WITHOUT RIFLES. Because 7.62 Tokarev had a more useful range than 9mm and could be used in most fights and not just in close quarters.
You can call it a "universal" round but the AK was completely designed as a SMG replacement.
7.62x54R stayed in service after the war for specialists (snipers with Mosin PU) and GPMG (RP-46, replacing SG-43 and Maxims) on platoon/company level for the time you need to accurately hit something past 300m that the spray and pray hasn't made think twice about it, which then evolved in the Dragunov and PKM which are still around today.
Analyzing firearms in a bubble without looking up at the tactics and doctrine of the day is what is retarded.
>replacing an SMG =/= designed to function as one
That is such retarded and backwards nigger logic. 7.62x39 was designed for use in infantry rifles and it was used in dozens of rifles first, all the guns adopted in it came from rifle and machine gun trials, and submachine guns remained in service after the AK was adopted. The use in combat doctrine didn't even resemble SMG tactics except for testing in the earliest years of service, and by the time the AKM improvements were being implemented, they had already found the assault rifle niche and were using it that way alongside DMRs and SMGs - because they determined the AK was not light or controllable enough for yor supposed "spray and pray" nonsense. By your thinking, if you have the balls to make sure it's internally consistent, that means that all bullpups are also SMGs because the original rationale for adopting them was to replace some of them in service. Is the FAMAS an SMG? Is the M1/M2 Carbine an SMG? Is the M16 an SMG? How about the G3? Fucking idiot. Take your fuddlore and leave.
>submachine guns remained in service after the AK was adopted
Not really, while they remained in use for some time afterwards, but them being out phased is almost exclusively AKs fault.
>they determined the AK was not light or controllable enough for yor supposed "spray and pray" nonsense
The main doctrine of the time and the main intended use of AK was automatic fire, compared to, say, AR that was more short burst oriented.
The video, watch it.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
They are entirely correct and it has nothing to do with failing to zero sights. American made AK's are literal trash and everyone who's been paying any sort of attention knows it.
I thought about an American made milled, but went with a Zastava N-PAP. Its been a really good rifle so far, so I probably made the right choice?
It's a meme.
Look up some accuracy test by AK Operator Union.
I don't know what people qualify as "accurate" anymore. Isn't the norm for AK platform rifles somewhere around 2-4 MOA? I thought the AR platform tends to perform around that range as well.
Other way around, they are downgraded battle rifles which can be used in SMG situations.
As said, this is a meme thread for low knowledge people.
You can, but I'm not going to bother.
Yeah, milspec AK's and AR's can both be expected to achieve that when mass produced and handed off to some grunt. Both can be accurized if someone cares, though AR's are easier to do that with and can be pushed a bit further because of the DI system.
It's a meme everyone fucking believes, every historian on every documentary is parroting these myths. Even gun makers think the AK is meant for 100m so they build the copies/reproductions substandard because of that.
That's what I thought. The AR's action and the greater aftermarket support (free floating's not that expensive anymore) makes it easier to accurize, but a stock AR15 shooting milsurp M193's not going to be that much better than an AK platform at 300 yards.
I guess it's just dumbshits thinking that top-end, heavily modified ARs are only slightly better than "THE GUN I USED IN THE SERVICE…"and that's why they got mad PTSD fragging all the mud men in the SANDBOX.
Probably the same mentality that makes people go cheap on their guns and ammo.
How is this a popular meme? Is it something from video games? How would 7.62 magically have "less range" in a specific gun, provided it has factory-machined rifling and wasn't made with fucking handtools and has massive gap between the chamber and barrel or something.
I mean, less EFFECTIVE range is arguable either by reduced muzzle velocity from shitty underloaded ammo/too long or short of a barrel/shooter having the rickets and can't aim straight but that doesn't excuse building your guns like shit.
I'm more curious as to where fuddlore evolves from. Is all this stupid shit cycling around our gun culture inspired from long hunting trips? How much of this is the military responsible for?
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
It's a meme started out by boomers.
Actual well made AK is just as accurate as AR.
inb4 it doesn't count because he has the nice stock
>I'm more curious as to where fuddlore evolves from. Is all this stupid shit cycling around our gun culture inspired from long hunting trips? How much of this is the military responsible for?
The Vietnam war.
AK is crazy reliable but inaccurate.
AR is accurate but jam like a motherfucker.
All from the Vietnam war.
It can be argued that AKs are less accurate because of more recoil and muzzle flip from misaligned bolt and stock that ARs don't have. That is, if we compare AR to AK-74 and such, if we choose 7.62x39 then there's a lot more variables to consider.
Vietnam created those myths, but there are a few other factors that play into those myths once they are created. There is the "false law of equality" which you can see from everything to every subject in false logic and reasoning, i.e. in game balance we see strong and tough classes as slow and weak and soft classes as fast, but in reality you have freaks of nature like Brock Lesnar and fast running large football players and you also have chubby basement dwellers who are small and also just plain slow as well as weak. This helps leads to other myths such as "women are smart to make up for their physical weakness, men must be dumb because they are physically strong" and "physically strong people are are stupid jocks, all weak people are smart nerds".
Which leads to "my jam-o-matic MUST be accurate not only because of tight build qualities, but also natural equality says it must have some sort of strength to make up for weakness". When it could be true the more reliable weapon might just be accurate too, that its reliability and relative accuracy need not be completely mutually exclusive. People think this way and like diametrically opposed things, so such thinking is popular and liked. Thus we see in games and in thought that chain mail is lighter and faster than advanced full plate, when this is not true (it's lighter to make up for the decreased protection right? plate is so strong it MUST have a real life nerf right?) zweihander's were in real life balanced and very fast swords in battle, but are perceived as being heavier and slower than they are (big, but slow, right?). Even higher up end stuff is eventually increased/decreased in this manner of thought, everything is exaggerated to give it some sort of false equality.
Not to mention that the US had to make excuses and cover itself for the boys who died with jamming rifles during the war. There had to be some great benefit to it, right? The AK proved itself, so let's tear it down a bit to make the situation a little less embarrassing. Its inaccurate, right, to make up for that tough reliability?
The opposite end of this is "X is universally better than Y" and "this part isn't just different and offers different values, its 100% superior and is a total upgrade". But its always fun to see people's logic on these issues.
> but a stock AR15 shooting milsurp M193's not going to be that much better than an AK platform at 300 yards
Sight difference would be significant for average bubba. But most people don't know about the magic of aperture sights (that they are basically iron red dots) to know why.
Stock AR15s are very accurate with match ammo but M193…
>shows one bad example
>youtube is full of good examples
One shit example due to one shit gun. Maybe not oiling it properly and just running random mags dry.
There's a guy on yt who ran 1,000 rounds through it and gave an update on em. tbh, I prefer them to comblock ak's. Some of their old stuff they seem to have been improving, and so they request feedback. But imo, from a company starting from the ground up attempting to replicate them, they are doing an awesome job.
If you compare apples to apples, there are 5.56 AKs like the M21, which are so good that mercenaries around the world sell their M4 stocks to purchase of these. And it's worth the cash, best of all possible worlds.
>worth any amount of money
The leaf strikes again, cast him into the mulch pile
That's just comparing apples to apples, and it's better to purchase just a rifle instead of a rifle plus all ammo.
Aren't you sick of being called mutt yet? Need a few more months of that spam before you learn?
Leaf falls down
Staining the green ground
Burnt in pile
Why would you want 5.56 over 5.45 for anything other than logistical reasons?
Better selection of fuck your shit up bullets, in particular the heavier grain stuff.
why are Russians always cat girls?
I'm being serious though,
anytime Japan draws a "Russian girl" they're always a cat girl
You're forgetting a rather obvious exception.
inb4 some autist says she's technically nipponese and not Russian.
>AKs can never hit the broad side of a barn
>Actual testing has proven off the shelf AR's and AK's with standard milspec ammo are both 2-4 MOA rifles, which is in line with my own shooting history
>YEAH BUT I USED HANDLOADED AMMO IN THE STAN', MY POWDER WAS MIXED WITH THE FORESKIN OF AFGHANI CHILDREN, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MURRICA'
>My AK is czech
>You mean a VZ58?
>NO GODDAMNIT IT'S A CZECH AK, GET OUT OF HERE WITH YOUR FAGGOTY REALITY AND SHIT
Based on a true story.
>Is the FAMAS an SMG?
No as it was designed to have an effective range of 600m (20in barrel, free floated bipod) to replace MAS-49/56 and therefore used the round you came up with to replace the M14 .308 that you came up with to replace the M1 .30-06, which had proven it self as a decent replacement.
It was adopted in a bullpup form to be able to have the same tactical use of the MAT-49, at the same time, making it an "assault rifle".
>Is the M1/M2 Carbine an SMG?
Yes. It's in the exact same class as the AK and all other "heavy SMG/light carbine" that came up during, before and right after the war Danuvia 39M/43M, SIG MKMO, MP 42 and 44.
>B-But muh sturmgewher
Like "blitzkrieg" it's post war bullshit, those guns were designed, issued and tactically used as the submachine guns were, only they were quite better at it, especially compared to the MP-40.
>Is the M16 an SMG?
Of course not, especially in it's first iteration.
>How about the G3?
Most people don't even consider the first generation of "assault rifle" as such anymore and prefer the term of "battle rifle" to lump everything from the RSC 1916 to the FN-SCAR in the same box as they have virtually the same tactical use as semi-auto, long range, rifles, because their usage in full-auto is extremely dubious, making them a mix of the box fed LMGs (BAR, Bren, etc…) and regular rifles.
Also because if they don't it means the Russians invented the assault rifle with the select fire AVS-36 and it's something people like you, american wehrboo, will never let pass.
The AK platform is accurate.
The AK-47/AKM isn't.
Why because 7.62x39 isn't accurate past 250-300m. Yes you can still hit if you know perfectly the ballistic trajectory of the round and where the targets are, but it's the same way you can get a mosin iron sight do to 1000 yard shots… Perfect range condition and expert shooter.
Because it was designed as a "a bit better" SMG round, which the soviets though was universal.
Until they realized it really wasn't and adopted 5.45mm en masse.
>not being autistic about firearms definitions when there are clear differences between designs and uses means you're a wehraboo
>nowhere in the post was liking German designs even mentioned
You can just admit you're talking out of your ass tbqhwyf.
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>this discussion again
Might as well point out the obvious again: the German infantry squad of ww2 was built around the machine gun, and the riflemen had two jobs: to suppress the enemy while the MG wasn't firing (because it was moved, reloaded, or needed a change of barrel), and to charge forward to a new position. For the first purpose the Stg was basically a LMG with limited range that could be fired from the shoulder. For the second purpose the Stg was a MP with a lot greater punch. The designation of the first two weapons that led to the later Stg were MKb 42(H) and MKb 42(w). MKB stands for Maschinenkarabine, or machine carbine. It's quite logical, as it's between a machine pistol which is called submachine gun in English, because Thompson had to fuck that up and a machine gun. They were clearly meant for automatic fire, to the point that Walther's model was firing from an open bolt. Then Hitler got autistic and they had to rename the new model to MP-43 to call down his nerves, because they could claim that it was just a straight upgrade to the machine pistols or submachine guns, because I know that someone will have to point out that in English machine pistol specifically refers to pistols modified for automatic fire, because Thompson and co had to come up with submachine gun as a marketing term. Then at a later point Hitler got autisitc again and dubbed this machine carbine the Sturmgewehr, because at that time the Germans named lots of things as Sturm-something for propaganda purposes. Then the English language had to pick up the translation of that propaganda term, and now we have all these fruitless discussion where people are asking each other if a rifle capable of automatic fire is in the same category as a machine carbine.
As for the soviets, they made the SKS to replace the Mosin. Now, the K (or more precisely К) stands for карабин, or carbine. Can we agree that they weren't wrong about this, and the SKS really is a self-loading carbine? If the answer to that question is yes, then we can take a step forward. They also had the RPD, a light machine gun chambered for the same cartridge as that carbine. Then they had the AK, a self-loading weapon capable of automatic fire that was meant to replace
submachine guns machine pistols. They quickly realized that the AK can do the work of the SKS without any modification, and it can even replace the RPD after the few modifications. So they replaced a self-loading carbine and a light machine gun with a machine carbine. And a machine carbine can do the job of a machine pistol, there is nothing mystical about that. All-in-all, what I want to say that is that all these arguments about terminology stem from the terminology itself, and that terminology is the result of a translation of a propaganda term that shouldn't be used to classify weapons. Of course we can still argue what makes a carbine and a machine carbine, and if the M2 was a machine carbine, but at least we'd avoid all of this confusion.
Yes, I know that no English speaker will switch from assault rifle to machine carbine, and we will have these discussion until the end of this site, but I still try to do what little I can.
I don't really like the use of "carbine" in english or Russian, for that matter, as it refers to the barrel length/OAL of the weapon and not its purpose or the cartridge it uses. I'd a lot more prefer the term "intermediate" instead, so that you have battle/full power rifle that use full power rifle cartridges and "intermediate rifles" that use intermediate rifle cartridges, instead of all this assault bullshit. On topic of SMGs, i don't really like the name either, not do i like the use of the word "machine" in English it just sounds weird, and would prefer automatic/auto-. For MGs it sounds ok but i like (squad/stationary) automatic weapon/gun/rifle more(with squad/stationary gun(SG) or rifle(SR) being the easiest to say and most pleasant to hear). SMGs is really little besides an advertisement term but at least its abbreviation sounds cool. Autopistol is better suited for actual autopistols, as pistol is something intended to be compact and able to be fired with one hand or something, while most SMGs are closer in size to smaller rifles.
>it's something people like you, american wehrboo, will never let pass.
Now that i think about it, there's pistol caliber carbines, but they are a narrower category because many SMGs have either pistol or rifle length barrels, though it's still a lot more technically accurate. It could be something about pistol calibers, short action or "small ammo", i dunno, but any combination sounds retarded, with PAW being very silly.
I'm not french anymore BTW Germany annexed us yesterday.
Glory to the German Empire.
The problem with that is a lot of guns were called "autopistols" or "autoloaders" around the turn of the 19th/early 20th century and it just meant they automatically loaded cartridges when you fired the gun. It might cause problems with existing, if archaic, firearm terminology.
>soccer mom thinks a 1911 is fully automatic because the ammo says so
I think the terms, in and of themselves, are more related to caliber, because caliber defines function. Thus a G3 is a battle rifle, a HK33 is an assault rifle, an MP5 is a submachine gun or machine pistol. If you want to get into carbines, then its barrel length discussion time, which is a long winded one because old fashioned relics like me remember the good old days of 29 inch barrel musket style rifles. Back in the good old days of yore, a 22 inch barrel was a carbine. Today a modern full length battle rifle such as the M14 for example, we'll use because it's got a "long" barrel for a modern automatic at 22 inches, is now considered a full length rifle by modern standards.
To simplify this, my own person official means of definition goes to both objective barrel length as well as relative barrel length. Relative in that there is a 'standard' barrel length for the weapon, G98 is 29 thus the K98 is, yes, a carbine, even if it has a longer barrel than a standard FAL or M14. Since the gun is musket style and original was super long, the shorter version can be considered a carbine. Since the barrels have been shorted on ALL modern battle rifles for standard, modern guns can be defined differently, since 21 and 22 inch are standard for FAL and M14 respectively, they can be called rifles instead of carbines (this is controversial to traditional nomenclature, but has its reasons), we may even say that The G3 with an 18 inch barrel might suffice because it was considered a rifle and has a standard barrel length of such. For battle rifles, thus a shortened 18 inch barrel on FAL or M14 might be both called a carbine (because hits a shortened more than standard version) or someone will try to call it a rifle (if you call your G3 a rifle at 18 inches, so can I fucker), but I would lean towards calling ANY shortened barrel a carbine as standard to differentiate modern guns. In a battle rifle ANYTHING under 18 inch is automatically a carbine. If the standard longest barrel is under 16 inches, all versions are automatically carbines.
In assault rifle, The M16 did come in, and still does, with the 20 inch barrel. This is a true assault rifle in every term. But since other assault rifles, like the AK, came in at 16 inch barrel length, and other following designs have as well, perhaps we'll reduce the objective minimum to 16 inch for assault rifles. Thus, any original assault rifle with a standard barrel length ~16 inch and above is an assault rifle, anything less for a standard barrel automatically makes it a carbine in all versions. Also, one can call an 18 inch barrel AR, or 16 inch , carbines, even if they are longer than my objective standard, because they are shorter than standard. Got it?
Submachine guns, machine pistols, are self explanatory. Any pistol cartridge that is in a carbine/submachine gun like form is automatically what it is, regardless of barrel length. The only reason why machinepistol can be dropped is because fully automatic handguns aren't submachine guns, they are just machine pistols, so the dividing term makes things clearer, we'll call the pistols machine pistols and the bigger guns SMG. PCC is only used as a civilian term because of the guns that aren't legally allowed to be fully automatic, thus no SMG status, no MP status, just PCC to differentiate. Even though this also includes manually operated weapons like lever guns.
Now go forth and spread my tl;dr as standard definition.
>not being autistic
get the fuck out.
Simply work you way up until you control the EU, and then crown yourself emperor and commence with the pogroms and the uncuckening.
Voila, you just accomplished what Napoleon failed to do.
It's for purposes of comparison, jesus fucking christ. If we're talking about trucks and the topic of reducing emissions, and i compare a truck to a prius, that doesn't mean I like the prius.
A fat, jewish mutt taps
enjoying the honeypot
I don't jive so good with your maple syrup double meaning words. When you say "best of both worlds" I interpret that as "you can use 5.56 AND on an AK platform", which implies that 5.56 is the best thing going for the AR. I don't get that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Rob Ski is in the guard and attended sniper school. So that's my excuse. Video is still super impressive though
Look if there was a 5.45 AR platform, I would compare a 5.45 AK to that. Since there isn't, I can't.
There's no hidden meaning.
If you had money, facilities and the staff required to develop a new rifle for the average grunt, what would it be like?
Does it work or is it another gimmick.
It would be picrel modernized(read: updated with polymers and ergonomics because anything Russian suposedly has to handle like a prototype designed by a retarded sadist) and chambered in 6.5 Grendel. We can go more autistic but that's what would be the cheapest, easiest and would require least amount of work to do.
Tough call, but it would probably be an FAL in either 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 Creedmore, whatever militaries would accept or the brass chooses. The old FAL design with the 280 British was so close to perfect that going back with a newer cartridge would suffice. There is no reason for the Eurasians to switch off from the AK, there was never a good reason to abandon the FAL platform for Stoner's designs.
FAL is fucking overrated, low accuracy & heavy build.
The better, cheaper design would be something like AR18.
>t. has never handled an FAL
>t. has never handled any rifle with more recoil than a .22 LR
>'cheap' is somehow the most important factor in choosing an effective weapon
>AR-18 is better than FAL based on some fallacious shit I made up because I said so
>all AR-18s are the same and also cheap and good
>gun designs cannot be modified in any way, if you adopt any form of the FAL action then it has to be exactly identical to the FN 50.00 pattern
<probably doesn't even know what a 50.00 is
Why don't you go be a nogunz nigger elsewhere?
I see a lot of FAL variant but I have yet to see a good FAL "accurized" variant, aside from maybe from shithole like Brazil where they can't procure better guns.
AR18 at it stands is an unfinished weapon, but its stamp sheet construction means you can pump a lot out of it.
The build quality of course depends on who make it of course, but construction-wise, it is easier to make than FAL.
If we wanna go stamp steel receiver, why not a delayed roller blowback, go H&K style which has proven itself in many variations and is cheap and reliable?
Standard surplus FN FALs are a 2.5 MOA rifle, L1A1 SLRs tend to be more accurate than that. Plenty of civilian production FALs either built or assembled in the US, if you don't buy absolute garbage, shoot 2 MOA or better. The Rhodesian Light Infantry used the FN FAL with PSO-1 scopes in the Bush War as designated marksman's rifles, and plenty of people do mid-to-long range shooting with them. Your average FAL pattern rifle is on par with an HK G3/HK91 if not more accurate, and it's especially a more accurate gun in repeated or automatic fire where the G3's nasty blowback recoil is not conducive to follow-up shots.
>an unfinished weapon
What? This doesn't even mean anything. The Stoner AR-18 was a complete design that reached military adoption in several countries, and nearly every modern infantry rifle in the past few decades has been based on the AR-18 platform, if not an AK - the Enfield L85, the Steyr AUG, the Leader T2 - with some of them being a direct copy just produced with proprietary parts and wrapped in plastic, such as the HK G36. The G36 is functionally no different from an AR-18 at all.
>stamped steel is cheap
Sure, in mass production, but the tooling and setup cost is very expensive and you have to pump out and sell large numbers in order for the economy of scale to work out. Something like that takes an assembly line of several different pieces of equipment and jigs and whatnot to get every bend and rib and divot and weld right, it's not like you just push the sheet through a Play-Doh machine and a finished receiver come out.
>easier to make than FAL
No, between milling and stamping, milling is by far the less complicated and easier of the two manufacturing processes. The disadvantages of milling are only related to it being a subtractive manufacturing method, meaning it has extra material costs leveed by the unneeded extra metal that you cut away (which is later picked up, melted down, and reused in new blanks), (cont.)
… but milling ostensibly requires less tooling and less factory space than stamping, and the parts used in manufacturing are allowed to be fewer in number and less complex. You can have one guy with a drill press and a dremel take a block of steel and turn it into a milled receiver by himself in a handful of hours, and although you have to deal with wear and tear on your tooling bits, this takes much less training and fewer steps than a stamping routine. Stamped receivers also require working surfaces and reinforcements to be added within them to make sure they don't break during operation (see an AK with its welded-in bolt carrier rails), whereas in a milled receiver, this can all be made from one single piece.
A milled receiver is also more receptive to heat treating and will typically lead to a longer surface life and a more durable, more quality controllable product. That is not to say that stamped metal can't be strong and can't be treated, because it can - you can even heat treat a cast part, if you hate yourself and don't mind the possibility of a random molecular bond imperfection making that part break later anyway - but the stamping process stretches and weakens the structure of the steel often in key places, and the basic fact of the matter is that the stronger you want a stamping to be, the thicker it needs to be, and a thicker stamping requires a bigger and stronger press to make it happen, which runs the factory costs all the higher.
Stamping becomes inexpensive after several thousands of units are done over a number of years and the machinery itself has been paid off, which unless you're filling a huge government contract and have a large enough factory space to do that in good time (dozens to hundreds of completed firearms a day), is going to take longer than you might expect. Most people don't realise how much of a pain it is to build something like an AK or a G3 outside of a major manufacturing plant - see Century Arms.
I may have to purchase one then. Although the registration certificate is a fucking pain in the ass.