Karl looks like an angry Boer farmer.

It's all about your army's military doctrine. I was MG3 gunner in German army (in the 1980s) and provided for the "volume of fire" - much better than any AK-derivate could do. To my side were G3 marksmen to cover and support me. I still believe it was a perfect combination. You have to look at your platoon as an organism. It's not the single soldier who counts, it's your team as a whole.

Giving Ian who really dislikes the G3, the G3 is just cruel. It is almost as bad as giving Karl a BAR. :P

I don't think we can make any conclusion from this video. Karl is a more experienced shooter than Ian and he was using a weapon he is familiar with. I suspect that if one person had done both runs the results would be different.

Karl's post competition assessments are classic.

Don't forget: with the G3 you can go prone very low, so you're a much harder target to hit! G3-purpose: defend (at least, that's what they taught me in the Bundeswehr), AK-purpose: attack...

Neat format there! looking forward to seeing more of these.

How 'bout you guys run the drill again, but swap rifles.

Ian Had more hits per rounds fired which certainly also counts in a combative environment. Ian hit 7 (?) times with 20rds and Karl 13 with 60rds so theoretically Ian got 21 hit LOL

I generally agree with intermediate cartridges as the better solution, but hits by volume of fire also means a higher ammunition consumption. Logistical resupply in the field isn't a guaranteed thing, and blasting all your rounds downrange for a comparable number of hits doesn't sound like a viable long-term solution. Especially if you're planning on an extended period of mobile warfare and aren't able to constantly get massive amounts of ammunition to your bullet hoses.

That moving platform is a great training tool thanks for showing that!

You guys always have the best hats!

hey guys. greetings from germany. thnk you for bringing hs this amazing content. i would realy enjoy a vid of a full competition run in as good as full length.maybe as a special of some kind as this is almost the only way for us in G to enjoy this kind of matches. keep it up and thanks for letting me see the place i grew up in 😊

If the AK "won the stage" for getting more hits, then the stage shouldn't require it to hit 3 times to the G3's 2. I am curious as to how close the times would be if you were allowed to finish the course.

Watching the energy effect on the camera at the end of the video from the other shooter is very interesting....

I love the Brazilian rubber plantation owner hat. Tight!

If you want to compare two rifles, then you should have one shooter shooting both, not have two shooters. Because that's not a rifle comparison but a shooter comparison.

I love Karl's hat.

I do not really share Karl's conclusion, using more ammunition to archive the same isn't usually a good thing, not even as a machine gunner - there is just so many ammunition you can carry around (OK you can carry around more AK rounds in theroy as long as you don't put them into AK magazines) the point is u usually dont sit on a shipping container of filled AK magazines so if you waste ammo you won't have any left when you need it

Interesting match. On the one hand, I agree with Karl - more rounds were put on target & more were expended in general, lending to the suppressing fire argument. But some of the advantages one would gain from an intermediate cartridge (lighter rifle & lighter ammo) are offset by the fact that he would have had to carry more ammo in the first place to get the same job done. Ian's ammo is heavier, but less was required on target & on his person. All things being equal, Karl's rifle is shorter, so maybe that's just enough of an edge here & there. Great match idea, guys.

Let's see: (13/60)*100=21,67% accuracy for Karl and the AKM. (7/20)*100=35% accuracy for the G3. I don't know, seems like the G3 takes the cake. Of course that is without considering how many times you have to hit the target. If you consider that Karl had to hit 3 times, it looks like he's killed 4.33 targets. Ian had to hit 2 times, so it looks like he killed 3,5 targets. If you bring up Ian's number of rounds, he would have hit 21 times, which is 10,5 targets. More accuracy = more targets killed or more rounds down range = more targets killed.

Excellent video, that bridge prop does look like a lot of fun. I'm with Karl, I give the nod to the AK/intermediate cartridge as the better rifle in a fighting environment. Keep up the great work guys.

I am sorry I missed that. I would really like to see how I'd do on that stage. Are you going to use it in this months match?

Do you guys have any insight/feedback on the C39V2's? What i'm getting at is club shooters that are using them out there and any failures/excessive wear?

Makes a good argument for optics,and muzzle devices.

Ian once said the HK-91/G3 is his mot less preferable auto gun to shoot...!

love the hat Karl!!

I will never understand left handed shooters! great video, I would love to shoot that course

Loved it, loved the swingin' platform! Test didn't seem decisive (kind of a draw even) but, it sure looked challenging and fun! Re the AKM in "more hits plus suppressing fire" rationale, that lands me at the AK74 just after another big conflict.

It is not as easy as it may look to rule volume of fire over precision and superior energy. It depends on many more factors. Each of these hits, intermediate cartridge or high energy cartridge, would surely ruin your day. On the other hand, there is always the possibility of secondary projectiles with narrow misses ! War logic tells that it is not really intended to kill your opponent. Wounding him seriously would inflict much more trouble than killing him. For a killed soldier, all you need is a body bag; for a wounded one, you will need a lot of people and infrastructure to take care of him. Or take the environment: A soldier behind some sort of wall will be safer from the AK's bullets than he would be from the 308. As Einstein said: All is relative...

This is good stuff!

I'm a battle rifle guy, I like a higher caliber doing more damage with greater barrier defeating capabilities: but I think this is a really good point of debate between intermediate caliber and rifle caliber. In battlefield terms and conditions: the AK produced a greater degree of suppressive fire and more enemies either incapacitated or severely inhibited by being wounded. G3 run would lead to 7 enemies wounded or KIA. AKM run would lead to 15 enemies wounded or KIA. I still prefer greater range, particularly with optics, and greater barrier defeating capabilities of a full power cartridge - but I can see a good argument being made for the intermediate cartridge.

That bridge prop... the InRange Hammock?

Ian how did you like that stock on the ptr?

I love creative stages in club matches. Used to shoot run and gun pistol a lot years ago. Some months there was rifle or shotgun added in. Club had 4 bays, mix of steel and paper (each paper target was a double tap and was scored) . They got creative. Some steel was at 30-35 yds, papers were often 2 or 3 at a time, various distances, lots of barricade shooting, etc. Ultimately i stopped going because it was a 3 hr drive 1 way and not worth going by myself after my shooting buddies moved away or died. :( Great practice though

In my experience, from sim rounds to live rounds to paintballs, when it comes to two enemies who both know what they're doing, it's generally the guy who can put more rounds downrange the fastest that will win.

Real test of mind, body and machine here. I really like this training. Static has it's place, but there is where it's at.

Is that a Selous Scouts emblem on your shirt?

I noticed you guys didn't use your slings to help you In the kneeling.

What caliber is going off around 07:27 that shakes the camera that much? Btw, in my opinion a hit with a lighter caliber still incapacitates most soft targets. Incapacitation is almost as good as pure knock-down power due to the fear response.

Well let's imagine us getting shot at by Ian & Karl. If there is a veteran in the comments, can one really tell the difference being shot at with an AKM and a G3? If one cannot really tell the difference, then Karl's volume of fire argument kind of make sense? And as for being shot, the casualty probably isn't too concerned nor aware that he has been shot at with a AKM or G3? Damage notwithstanding, the casualty is probably out of action for the time being. Again, damage to cover notwithstanding, the immediate effect is suppression, allowing your forces to close in...

That’s exactly the sort of ranges the intermediate cartridges were made for. 50-200 meters is the majority of small arms engagements. At those ranges the intermediate takes it. Especially given the fact that there’d be a squad or platoon of guys with you all laying down those rounds. The extra hits win.

Damn, Karl went legit with his new haircut. I always loved the old style, personally.

I really dig these kinds of videos...I own several ak variants, as well as a G3 clone...and love them both.I would hate to choose between them, it depends on the task at hand....ak is lighter,more ammo--but G3 makes me smile more...inspires more confidence and mine is accurate as hell...harder hitting.....:)

I am an iranian and believe me if you ever see what can a g3 hit cause on a regular soldier you won't brag on which is better I don't say AK is bad since me myself am experiencing both of them and both have their strength and weaknesses but overall G3 is a monster killer Yes it will jam if you don't taking care of it regularly and clean it more often but if you keep it clean and tight he will just destroy your target Its destructive power is beyond what ever any AK can accomplish And i am completely disagree over targeting and accuracy superiority of AK over G3 in fact its the opposite In my experience G3 is far more accurate than AK Maybe because i used much older AK versions(47) i don't know

I'd say that the moving platform also simulates shooting from a boat/ship.

Even though I PERSONALLY choose the .308 answer to this question...I have to draw the conclusion that in this particular test, both answers were equally valid. Neither rifle was demonstrated to be superior in this situation. Of course, shooter skill/familiarity was an uncontrolled variable...anyway, which FAL did you get, Ian?? This just makes me like you even MORE! Not sure how that's possible...

Poor Ian. Having to use the G3.

How does 60 rounds fired + 13 hits = 5 misses? How are misses calculated/what qualifies as a miss?

that platform chain-ged everything

so if you guys could solve the "rifle problem", how would you go about it?

It seems like the bridge at least slightly favored the .308 rifle, as you could afford to wait slightly longer for the platform to stabilize, since you had to take fewer shots and get fewer hits.

Wasn't Karl supposed to engage safety when transitioning to prone? Or did I miss it?

HMMM that a tough one. Its volume of fire vs accurate precise shots. I am going to go with Karl and his volume of fire because to many times in Wargame Red Dragon I send an elite very accurate infantry squad in only to be beaten down by volume of fire.

I actually think the AKM won. I'm with Karl here. Also, you guys should do this with an SVD, or some sort of DMR configured gun.

wouldn't the better rifle depend on the doctrine of the army using it and which rifle is better suited to that doctrine?

How can you stand the heat?

Jeeeeeeeeessus that moving bridge platform looked like a nightmare. Have you ever dealt with a less favorable shooting situation, guys? edit: Also, Karl, you're looking great! Damn, man, the weight loss is really noticeable in the face. How you feeling? Good, I hope.

Stupid question : Is there any statistical data indicating chances of death after being shot once? (different rounds calibers, etc.)

also I think the discussion at the end between Ian and Karl just shows the ideological differences between military doctrines. Massive walls of fire versus the individual marksman. Fewer more well placed shots or sheer volume of fire? I don't know if there is a correct answer for every situation.

Ian seemed to be stabilizing himself on the left side "rail". But damn that recoil on G3 is pretty mad.

What dump pouch is Karl rocking?

Was that the Bridge to Ramagden, or too far, or over the river Kwai, or the one Billie Joe McCallister jumped off of ? Rounds whizzing past, do make you duck, but hits sting a little..Hits count, misses don't..It's a tie..

Does anyone know what that AKM is? What company made it and what model it is?

comparing 2 weapons is one side, but you always have to look at the infantry tactics of both sides too. german bundeswehr for example has the mg3 for suppression, the g3 has a different role than the ak has in the russian military. and also german soldiers are trained to use less ammo.

Is some one shooting a 50cal in the end of the video?

someone calling where you miss does that matter I think optic vs iron it might

it would depend for me on if the target is wearing armour. I'd say the battle rifle is more useful here in a small unit limited resupply light infantry role. with mechanised large resources role.the ak increased round count is fine.

It depends on the battle. For most I will say volume of fire if logistics support it. Precise shots if lower recourse. Also I have no war cred, so I'm just guessing on info given.

on a target range i can not think of any benefit less than 400y shooting. Maybe pushing an object by striking it with hits. Destroying a concrete wall?

Ian, what is that hat you are wearing?

I think the G3 could have performed slightly better in standard A3 configuration. That folding buttstock, the tropical handguard with bipod. And the carrying handle and the awful sling made the gun more heavy and more difficult to use.

would Ian have done better if he was right handed ? I'm curious how changing the dominant hand would have affected performance.

Nice shirt Ian-Selous Scouts IIRC?

I would like to see this test done with an AKM wearing a red dot and a G3 wearing a red dot. My guess is the AKM would win again and would widen its margin of "victory". This is a very interesting test, thanks for sharing

Thanks for the great videos. The argument is interesting, but I think it ignores a fundamental fact of the battle space to use the current term. There are other threats such as land mines, etc. I have read that the Taliban in Afghanistan use rifle fire as a herding device. The idea is to chose a battle space where there are pre-implemented explosive devices and then use rifle fire to force the opposing force to move into the danger area. I know from Viet Nam that such a tactic works. Once you start to view a rifle as a hand-held artillery device, your tactics change. I think the major idea that changes is the concept of a hit, and that is the crux of Karl's argument. In a military situation, one is trying to suppress enemy fire, cause enemy casualties, and for the enemy to give ground. This is traditional theory. This theory is also why a big traditional military has trouble fighting guerrilla forces. In that situation less fire that is precise is much more publicly acceptable and would favor the more restrained battle rifle concept. I think that Karl and Ian did a great job of illustrating why finding a general military theory that fits all is extremely difficult and why we require soldiers who are brave, well-trained, and most of all adaptable. These are special people and deserve our respect.

In my opinion, and i´m owner of both rifles, the AKM wins this competition. But on this close ranges below 100metres, the G3 can´t show its advantages. You must see, the doctrin of the west german army was it to slowing down the enemy and geting back. In this doctrin its necessary to put effective fire on the enemy as early you can(when the enemy is far away), so the enemy is spreading out befor he can bring on effective fire on you. The G3 was the rifle for it. But in close combat environmment as usefull as a full-size SUV in a german city. When i shoot my G3, i only use the 50m sights, when i have a scope on it. With open sights, i allways use the 200m sights, also in close conditions. Great competition, thanks for the video!

I'm a G3 fan .Heres how I see 60 rounds vs 20 rounds.As the old saying goes you can't miss enough to win a gun fight.

I am not convinced by most of the arguments that the AKM "won" this stage... Yes more rounds were spent and that would have an effect! However there are a few points to counter, first is that there were no return fire, suppressing fire is effective, however the times you need to reload, gives an opening for shooting back with effect. Second these stages only really count in an one on one situation, and in real life (as you are prone to argue for) it would be units fighting. Making the reload less of an issue, but the return fire argument keeps being there (more targets, more firepower). Also being hit by either the G3 or the AKM would be "unpleasant", at that range it would be deadly either way... What do speak for the AKM, is the amount of bullets at the ready... 30 rounds instead of 20 has to count, so on that point I would say the AKM won... But the G3 did not seem like it was at a great disadvantage on this stage.

Spotters should be calling the misses with clock positions.

Ian wins the best hat contest! Karl stole that hat from that Festus guy from "Gunsmoke"

that is a beautiful AKM

"More bullets!" :)

I can't recognize Karl without the facial hair or round sunglasses

0:45 Hi guys! Thanks for tuning in to another video on ForgottenMagazines.com, I’m Ian . . .

i wonder how much easier that first stage would have been if they had had optics

Rifles are not the only weapons on a battlefield; the advantage is if a full-power or intermediate cartridge fits better in a military organization's combined arms doctrine.

4:57 the hop 😂

A hit from any 30 cal high powered rifle is going to ruin your day

Is Karl being facetious when talking about how much Ian loves the G3 at the beginning? I honestly can't tell with his deadpan style of humor.

Lol, Karl looks like something out of some future, post apocalyptic Western. Awesome look.

Tell Ian not to forget his F>A.L. The Right Arm of the Free world must save the day. Lol. Thanks, keep up the great work.

Stage Idea: You have to penetrate a token plate of armor to the real target behind it (Maybe just taping the target to the armor will suffice) for the shots to count. This favors those heavier rounds. Whatchoo think?

Karl has a point with favouring the AK due to the suppressive fire idea but what if the combatant has a limited supply of amunition .... or has to carry whatever he needs by himself by foot? I'd rather carry 1/3 308 then 3/3 7,62x39

My personal experience shooting stuff on a junk pile on private property has been 556 (didn't have a 762x39 that day) is kind of a piss poor penetrator. I mean I guess its really lethal in flesh, but if they have any kind of cover, like an old oven, its probably going to work pretty good. But 308 just seems to truck right through. I know that's not scientific, but it made me feel that a guy with an AR15 would be at a disadvantage to a guy with a FAL or something. I wasn't using that 62 gr steel core stuff. I was using 55 IIRC so maybe that has something to do with it.

Fucking love this channel

I want Karl's hat

Haha, these two, along with a classic MP5 and a 1911 are the guns that I'd love to have in a gas blow back version for Air soft.;)) Well an AN-94 as well...

Within 170 yards intermediate cartridges are still booking with enough energy to cause some real damage, so to me its more like Karl was effectively/practically neutralizing 13 targets despite the 3 hit per target requirement. I think the difference between the two becomes more pertinent at further distances (300+ yards) which is the edge of 7.62x39 effective range. gundata.org/blog/post/7.62x39mm-ballistics-chart/gundata.org/blog/post/308-ballistics-chart/ However, in a squad with Karl laying down suppressing fire with intermediate firepower and still getting hits while Ian hammers away with a full.308 would be a bad day.

Context provides the answer. If you are part of an organized force of greater than 4, intermediate (5.56 is superior to 7.62 for most purposes) wins. If selecting a personal weapon for defense in extralegal environments AND you don't anticipate humping cross country, terminal ballistics take over - Battle rifles and black tip ammo. Keep a loaded battle rifle in .308 or 30-06 in your basement and an AK or AR in the car. 7.62x39 is a good round for vehicle guns. 5.56 if you might have to hike... help me fix my logic if I'm missing something.