Few Years ago I spoke to a Vietnam vet, who had just retired as a dean of a university. I inquired about what he carried during the war, which was , tompson, aks, to m-16s. He confirmed to me when they first received the m-16s they did not with cleaning gear. He said he also fired LAWs rockets in combat against infantry. I asked how effect was that, he stated "I dont know I didn't check, but it made me feel better".

From start to current times the AR 15 style rifle is an amazing evolution. The platform has done far more than designed to and has done it extremely well.

I worked with a marine that fought in Vietnam. Asked him how he liked the M16. He turned, looked at me, and with a big smile said "I loved it".

Brother, I seriously do not know how you don’t have more subscribers. You are seriously one of the best guntubers.

I’m a GWOT vet and a big AR fan, and completely agree with your overall assessment. The only disagreement I have is personally think Green Tip was not a great M4 round, and the M855A1 and 77 grain loads are better in the shorter barrel. The AK will always be heavier and have a more complex manual of arms. Some of the newer rail systems do work well, but the AK never really had state backing to make good rails-we have KAC, DD, Geissele and others competing to make upgrades M4 furniture. A lot of the forces that field can barely afford rifles, mags and ammo, let alone putting ACOGs, Surefires and PEQs on every issued gun.

4:30 Hitler was against the rifle first because it would take up production capacity needed for the MG42, because of its sheet metal construction. Later je rejected it because it needed a new cartridge.

The Stg44 saw lots of use after WW2. IIRC the Soviets supplied most of their captured stocks of the Stg44s to the Czechs, East Germans, even early aide to North Vietnam. These migrated to various commie uprisings in Somalia, Ethiopia and Algeria. I think the Portuguese Airborne adopted it while fighting it in Algeria as a standard issue for quite a while. I know from friend's that served in Iraq they found a few Stg44s in various weapons caches. That gun got around. I guess it was the most 'plausible deniability' gun around in the early years of the cold war for the Soviets to distribute out.

Regarding the aftermath of the G36 controversy, the German government actually tried to sue H&K to make the company pay to repair their rifle, but H&K hit back and showed the original requirement for the G3 replacement did not list sustained full auto fire. The German government lost that lawsuit then later tried to replace the G36 with another rifle. Initially C.G. Haenel won the tender to replace the G36 but then lost the contract when it was found their MK556 rifle infringed on H&K patents. H&K was then awarded the contract and are due to replace the G36 in 2024 with the G95A1 and G95KA1 rifles which are newer versions of the HK 416. So in the end, H&K got to replace their own rifle for the German military.

Sir I have the utmost respect for your videos and knowledge on this subject, and I want to congratulate you on the weight loss. Keep up the good work! We need true experts to get the truth out!

Both my AKs have optics, one is a red dot from KUSA the other is a Micro prism 3X magnification from Primary Arms. It was extremely easy to set up with both having the AK master mount side rail. both zeroed in at 100 yards and had a better grouping then some AR guys at the range. basically don't forget the human aspect of it.

Your issues with the ak basically come down to lack of competency and familiarity. This will be true with most modern service rifles. If your performance fails, the key takeaway is that it was you that failed. Not the rifle.

This is the best break down on the black rifle I've seen. There's still lots of vets that loved the 14.

I have been waiting for this video for many years!!! I love debating which is better

I own both, love shooting both. SHTF I’m gonna use them both. My AMD 65 I leave with iron sights so I can throw it in my truck and ride, it’s really tough and durable. I have some AR’s that cost a lot of money with high end optics, they’re more for accuracy at distance. Here recently I’ve bout a couple basic M-4 style AR’s from PSA, great guns, they’re decently priced, accurate and reliable.

Really happy that you made a video on this topic. I've been watching some stuff about CIA paramilitary guys during the GWOT and one thing I noticed was how many of them had to run AKs for opsec reasons. I've been wondering how much of a difference those operators felt when transitioning from AR to AK platforms.

Chris, the Russians aren't having any issues attaching optics and accessories to modern AKs. The side rail is very robust and holds zero perfectly. The reason you don't see them with optics is because they can't afford to outfit every single soldier with one.

My dad in Vietnam in the early ‘70s carried an M14. He preferred it over the M16A1.

I love them both, they both have strengths and weaknesses, I own several of each.

Both, the answer is always both...currently.

"Personally, I prefer an M16." -George Washington

Thank you for this excellent educational video. I am a veteran and I learned a lot of the history I did not know or had forgotten. Carry On Sir!

WAS THAT YOU SHAKING KALASHNIKOV'S HAND? WOW

I understand you are a big fan of the AR (as am I), but your bias when speaking if the AK was “utterly and completely” over the top. A lot of opinions about the AK as well. I’m actually disappointed as I was hoping for a well thought out discussion.

Other than looks the only thing i genuinely find better on the ak is the side charging handle. I know the t charger doesn't get a lot of use because of the last shot bolt hold back but when i do have to use it i find it incredibly awkward.

A critique I've always had about the Kalash platform despite enjoying it myself is that you can't do much to it without adding weight. On a standard AR15 there are numerous things you can do in terms of materials, accessories, etc. which will add more capabilities without going above the standard 6.5lbs - 7lbs configuration. While on the Kalash outside of Occam Defense which big name AK guys don't really like doing (perm modification) you'll always add on weight to accommodate more accessories or capabilities outside of the optics and accessories themselves without perm modifying the base rifle.

That nod to Henry was hilarious and caught me off-guard.

An important talk. I think there are situations I would prefer one over the other. Of course we hardly ever get control over when those times occur. I have been watching the situation in Ukraine and I notice that again, depending on what mission it was being asked to perform some rifle types are thought of rather poorly, while others have over all good reputation.

7:35 The AK-47 was adopted in 1949 as the AK (without an number).

People will still be using Kalashnikovs a hundred years from now😁

You can accessorize an AK just as good as an AR these days - it's just gonna cost you in weight, especially if running a 16 inch barrel. There are receiver side rails, Zenitco (and American clones), ultimak, etc. for lots of different mounting options. But weight and length is why the elite units went to 102/104/105 setup - and they are still heavy but far more manageable. The AK has evolved with the times AS MUCH AS IT CAN - it's not that it hasn't evolved at all. The AR has the advantage of being invented at just the right time in regards to modern materials, manufacturing methods, metallurgy, etc. - oh and having the worlds largest defense budget and largest economy behind it's development over the last 60 to 70 years.

I think the range on the Ak is easily 300, and 4 and 500yds is doable with some experience, where an m4 is pretty easy to 500yds and 650 to 7 with some experience.

14:55 The DI action actually helps the M16 as well. the gas venting out the bolt helps push dirt/mud out of the action

If you have a chance Chris, you should check out the Polish WZ 96 Beryl. The Poles did a good job designing a modern AK platform rifle that addresses many of the modern concerns (for AK's) that the M4A1 did.

My buddy’s grandpa had a major collection and literally tonight we were looking at all the guns and what you said about the m14 is so true it’s so huge lol

Love this video, but who taught you how to run an AK? You can reload a bone-stock AK while maintaining your shooting hand on the pistol grip. You can also maintain your handgrip when manipulating the safety.

The internals of a Kalashnikov is an M1 garand mirrored. The AK kind of sort of loosely looks like a cheap crappy STG44, but the operation is very much so garand. The failures of the SKS were improved upon as the PPSH41 and PPS43, Thompson, BAR, STG were all box fed. More ammo mo better. STG44 and G3 are far closer in operation than the AK and the STG.

The Marines in Vietnam did not, at all, like the M16A1 when they received it. One Marine saying "the M16 is the biggest piece of trash", other marine saying "the M16 malfunctioned a lot... It had problems". Source: The Vietnam War (2017) The AR is now regarded, by anyone with any subject knowledge, to be one of the best, if not the very best "azalt rifle" to ever see mass production. But, it did not begin like that. It began with failure rates in combat well above 30%! So, what went wrong?! Well, apparently, the rifles were issue with a different type of ammunition than the one that the weapon was trialed with. As it turned out, this new ammunition was a lot dirtier than the one from the trials. So, with each round fired, the gas system got more and more obstructed. Obstructed to the point where the rifle would start malfunctioning. These problems only got worse when soldiers used the cleaning kit, if they had one, unsatisfactorily or did not clean them at all. Perhaps this is a lesson to all of us about being careful while formulating an opinion. We should ask ourselves "Could the magazine be the problem? Could the ammunition be to blame? Quite often the weapon itself is not to blame whatsoever. Regardless, the powder's composition and shape was eventually changed, the soldiers used their cleaning kits, things got a lot.

Nice overview! I grew up in the '60s and there was a popularity see-saw between the two. Up through the '80s, the M16 was generally derided as a finicky jamamatic while the AK was held up as an absolutely reliable battle monster. As the AR became more refined, available and the modern accessories were developed, the tables started turning. It has also been noted that as AR pattern rifles have become more available in world hot spots, they are generally preferred over the long-used AKs.

As far as weather conditions go, the AKs seem to perform better in freezing environments though

The M-16 series rifle is no more reliable than it was 50 years ago in 1970. Our doctrine of keeping it clean to function properly has simply improved. As long as we fail to adopt a tapered cartridge, we will continue to have to stress ultracleanliness. And tight tolerances between the BCG and upper doesn’t help if sand grains get into it, along with the excessive expansion and twisting of an aluminum upper, regardless of alloy, forged or cast. In 34 years of airborne infantry, whether using an M-16A1, A2, A4, M-4, or M-4A1, those BCG’s begin to seize after about 8 mags of rapid, burst, or auto fire. Yes, the AR platform has become extremely popular, but it’s far from perfect.

It really depends on the person and how much firearms experience they have but for the average American the AR15 style of rifles would be the better choice I think. But for me I really like the simplicity of the AK. I also really like the 7.62×39mm that most AKs shoot.

The standard M16 works well for southpaws as well. When I hit the mag release, my support hand is there to rip the magazine free if needed, the safety is usable with my trigger finger, and so on. It's the best in the world at what it does and hasn't been replaced for a reason: the guns that are objectively better cost more than 2x what it costs to make an M16 but they don't offer 2x the performance.

Wow what a moment in time for you to meet and speak to Mr Kalashnikov.I imagine he had great respect also for the Colt M16 .What a great memory for you.

What about the Galil Ace? I suppose that's like a Valmet.

the dates the rifles were adopted yet the ak can holds its own says alot

One of the greatest advancements the AR-15 brought, was the molecularity/easeness regarding Headspace. All barrels come pre-headspaced and ready to install, courtesy of being mated to the barrel extension installation at the factory.

Looking at the Vietnam-era M16 and the Ukraine-era AK-12 as issued to the basic conscript and then comparing it to any current rifle issued by NATO or the PRC, it's clear how far the AK has fallen behind more than 50 years later.

so this might be a hot take but pre-1989 in the cold war before the m4 PIP and modern magazines and also the adoption of picatinny and modularity I think the kalashnikov was the equal od the AR most of the downsides of the AK platform people talk about like weight become much less of an issue when you look at the AK-74 Both guns were 7ish pound guns that fired a similar SCHV round that was about 1 pound for a loaded magazine of 30. The AK-74 was more compact, especially the folding stocked variants and more reliable with almost no recoil being incredibly easy to shoot. The m16s may of been a bit more mechanically accurate with a far better sighting system but was much longer and let down by more fragile magazines realistically both guns in a hypothetical ww3 would of worked well enough it wouldn't of made a difference Hell the superiority of the PKM over the m60 probably would of decider more info try engagements then the rifles. Look at how in the 2010s talibian pkm gunners in afghanistan wearing sandals with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths made the US army contort itself in all kinds of ways to "overmatch" them with their crazy Next generation weapoms system

I am a US Army Veteran... I have owned AR's, and AK's.... And your blowing smoke up my ass... AR's serve their purpose in a controlled (clean) environment... AK's just work, and I like the cartridge better...

The AK mag is nothing like the StG except for curvature, which is a function of cartridge taper. Ironically the StG mag works like the AR mag. Also, it's fairly outrageous to suggest that modern railed AKs can't be use with optics. Limited Russian issue of them isn't the same as the rifle being incapable of using them. AK-74 only does 400 yards? You reference Henry at one point, maybe watch his AK-74 videos?

Cold temerature is the area where AK shines. But it could have been designed better with a rigid top and better ergonomics. Other then that its mechanism and magazine are solid.

We keep repeating the mistakes of the past. The M1 Carbine was designed to replace pistols (and bolt action rifles and some M1 Rifles) for front-line non-riflemen. The actual specifications called for the Carbine to replace the submachine gun as well (funny--the M1 Rifle was also supposed to replace the submachine gun and the M14 Rifle was supposed to replace the submachine gun...) and small unit leaders (company and below) were more effective with Carbines than with pistols while not being tempted to use their personal defense weapon in lieu of their main weapon--the unit. The Carbine was compact enough for drivers and weapon crews while permitting the Carbine-armed soldier to contribute to the company's firefight. Mission creep set in. Original specifications for the Carbine were select-fire with 20 round and 50 round magazines. It was more important to get this new light rifle into front-line service than it was to get a perfect light rifle into front-line service, and so the M1 Carbine entered service with flip-up L-sights (100 yard peep, 200 yard peep and a notch atop the 200 yard peep for 300 yards), no bayonet, a canvas belt holster, and 15-shot magazines. By the end of WW2 the Carbine became select-fire, gained 30 shot magazines, a bayonet lug, and a rifle grenade launcher. There were even muzzle breaks and flash hiders--and the M3 Carbine was developed to use the new IR Snooper Scope system. Fast forward to the 1990's, nearly half a century later. The M16 platform had been provided with "submachine guns" In 5.56mm and 9mm since the early days. The early passive Starlight night fighting systems married up well with the lightweight M16 family. Still, the M16 didn't totally displace the M3A1 submachine gun because the M16 was longer (lighter in weight than the M3A1, especially when both were loaded) and the durable Grease Gun didn't suffer much performance degradation from being abused. There wasn't much that could go wrong with the M3A1, but also not much in the way of performance. Optimistically the M3A1 sights were set for 100 yards, and the M3A1 was at its best under 50 meters. The M4 was intended for a number of missions--lightweight PDW, direct replacement for the M3A1 as AFV local security/point defense weapon, and the lightest possible Special Forces weapon. As is pointed out in the video, the M4 was not intended for the assault rifle role--but Mission Creep set in and the M4 was often pressed into service where a belt-fed machine gun was more appropriate. Designing weapons for how they are used by soldiers on the battlefield is rare. The AK-47 was supposed to replace Soviet burp guns on a one-for-one basis with the main rifle squad weapons being the RPD and the SKS. That obsolete French Great War squad model was still radical and revolutionary during World War Two--the assault rifle was a game changer. About 1910 John M. Browning devised a "machine rifle" intended to replace several Springfield M1903 rifles in a rifle company. The prototype was designed to fire from a closed bolt and was primarily a semiautomatic rifle that could deliver full-auto fire for close combat. The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) gained weight like an American eating fast food twice a day because the US Army wanted a light machine gun and the BAR was the closest thing available to the Americans in 1917. The first problem was that the .30 caliber M1906 cartridge was too powerful for hand-held automatic fire from a rifle weighing the same as the Springfield. Already overweight, the BAR went with an open bolt firing mechanism and a heavy barrel so that a dozen magazines could be fired in ten minutes without the gun falling apart or overheating and jamming. The M1918A2 Automatic Rifle of World War Two was great on the fire team level (only individual weapons for a fire team--crew served weapons turn fire teams into weapon crews) but as a squad light machine gun suffered from shortcomings that even the great John M. Browning didn't foresee. In the PTO, Marines often "lost" flash hiders, monopods, bipods, and a few other things that made the BAR long and heavy. Pre-WW2 a jungle-fighting edition of the BAR was experimented with by the Marines and a few rare Colt Monitor Rifles were produced for the police market. One weapon that the 1936 adoption of the M1 Rifle (the Garand) was supposed to replace was the BAR--along with the tommy gun and the M1903 Rifle. The 1940 USMC Small Wars Manual spoke of dividing the 9-Marine squad into two teams, each with at least one M1 Rifle and the rest armed with the M1903, for use in close terrain (towns and jungle) encountered during the Banana Wars. The US Navy's ad hoc infantry squads during World War Two had eight or nine Sailors armed with two Thompsons (as "automatic rifles") and six or seven M1903 Rifles. The improved M4 Carbine family is robust enough to serve as a fire team base of fire weapon. With an M203A1 or M302 40mm grenade launcher, the M4 can provide high trajectory explosive munition delivery and at distances of under 150 meters can lob a grenade through a bunker slit or into a window. The M4 retains the ability to fire rifle grenades--I've read about that being used but haven't seen it. There's the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a big green rocket-propelled gum ball that is claimed to have the punch of a 105mm howitzer and a maximum range of 1000 meters--again, I've read of them but haven't seen them. The M4 can be fitted with a muzzle suppressor. There are many sight options for the M4 family. One return to the past--France still used Cuirassier heavy cavalry up to September 1915 and their model of the Berthier carbine featured a leather Cuirassier buttplates so that the carbine could be fired while wearing the breastplates. Flak vests have been part of US Army and US Marine equipment since the Korean Conflict. Fixed stocks offering either Papa Bear length of pull (too long) or Mama Bear's butt-plate-to-trigger length (too short) were unsatisfactory even though by the mid-Eighties US PASTG body armor was universally issued to support and service troops. The original CAR-15 telescoping buttstock was intended for compact storage and transport--but Mission Creep and some ingenuity made that a four-position stock so that the rifleman could adjust length of pull as required. There's still demand that the M4A1 function as a heavy machine gun and a featherweight PDW, with hope that the M4A1 function both as a CQB weapon and reach out 1000 meters for "one shot/one kill" -- just blame Mission Creep. The US Air Force redefined their survival rifle requirements and have a light-weight edition of the M4 (GAU-5A?) with folding pistol grip that can be broken down and packed in an ejection seat survival kit along with four loaded 30-shot magazines and a detachable muzzle suppressor. The original AR-15 specs of 1956 were a 500-yard effective range with a trajectory matching .30 Caliber M2 Ball--that's why the caliber was .224 inches instead of something larger, making a rifle that weighed as much as the M2 Carbine that was controllable in automatic fire meant giving up on the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge and accepting something less powerful, producing less buttplate energy and less stress on the rifle. Everything is a Baby Bear compromise--might be "just right" for Goldilocks but Papa Bear will find it too soft and Mama Bear will find it too hard. Most soldiers are Goldilocks--or Baby Bear. The rest of us just have to cope with compromise. When someone complains to me about underpowered infantry rifles, I tell them the story of Kilimanjaro Bell, elephant hunter, and his 6.5mm rifle.

It would be cool if you had a friendly debate with m26 Lemon Grenade. In his combat experience, it often took several hits with 5.56 to neutralize unarmored Iraqi men. While 7.62x39 had the stopping power to down kitted Marines with one shot, which is the main reason for his AKM preference. Kalashnikov himself wasn’t a big fan of 5.45x39, which was developed mostly to increase effective range and carry larger quantities of ammo (weight savings). Also, while comparing reliability, you didn’t mention cold environments. M16/M4 components such as the safety levers, magazine release, and bolt catch become too difficult to actuate when exposed to freezing climates. The charging handles aren’t robust enough for mortaring in those conditions either. Besides Russia, colder countries such as Switzerland and Finland use service rifles derived from the AK design because piston systems have superior performance. I’m capable with either platform. It all comes down to location and availability. If there’s enough resources to properly maintain an AR variant, it’s the ideal choice in Westernized countries. If we’re talking an “apocalyptic” scenario where tossing a gun in a puddle is the extent of cleaning, then it’s AK for me.

The Ak was the last of the WWII rifles and the AR15 was the first of the modern rifles.

Kalashnikov also took part in the competition for the SKS, his prototype use the same operate system as the AK.

Hello, thank You for the video, I am a big fan of your channel. If you don’t mind I would also share some thoughts on the titan clash. I personally have both civilian M4 and AK74. Despide m4a1 is clearly technically superior weapon, I would still trust my life to AK, and here is why: 1) On paper AR magazine is getting inserted easier and faster but ones you have it fully loaded you need to hit it hard or slap, so in this case I would prefer AK lever mechanism which especially helps in some complicated environments. 2) recently, hard way I learned that AR magazine, even magpul, gives you a chance to insert 31 round and if you do so it won’t feed. Loading half empty magazines under stress I won’t really count the rounds, so in this case I would prefer “foolproof” AK magazine where you can load 30, no more than 30 and it will feed all 30. 3) malfunctions: most AK malfunctioning can be resolved pulling this charging handle+\- magazine detachment. In case of M4 sometimes you need to pull the lever, sometimes you need to push forward assist ( in Israel they devide M4 malfunctions in 3 levels and it happens that each level has it’s unique move). Under stress I would prefer my body to know and use one move rather than 3. 4) Weight. Everyone talks that AK is heavier than m4 but I weighted my loaded FN M4a1 and SLR104 and the difference was 40 grams, if I will put Zenitco handguard and dust cover to give AK more modularity the difference will be 140 grams which is nothing counting steel durability. 5) Accuracy. AR cartridge has better ballistics but AK74 has less recoil, so at distances up to 300 metes I would consider them similar. At least when I was studied in Ukrainian military school, we kids were able to engage the growth target at 200 and 300 meters. In my eyes the only valuable advantage of M4a1 over AK74 is handy safety lever, but it can be leveled out, by aftermarket safety levers or scout technique( when you disengage safety and put your finger begin the trigger so preventing rifle from firing in the movement through the woods, but having ability to engage the trigger quickly). Heavy barrel and night options mount is also an advantage, but AK74M, developed in 1991 already faced all that and the dovetail was standardized on each rifle and the barrel became heavier. Russians don’t use much optic not because their AKs are not capable, but because they simply don’t have much optics as they are poor. Hope this comment makes sense to you. Thank you.

Your assessment was well thought out, I agree with it. As a kid growing up in the 80s, those WERE the war guns. I own copies of both . The AR's are my work horses, the AK are mostly for nostalgia. But man, they run. Great video as always 👍

GWOT vet and we liked our M4's. I can't imagine using a G3 for the same tasks, and I wouldn't want to use an AK.

It's like comparing a pickup truck to a corvette

Well done. I agree the M16/M4 is just better.

When you see the mud tests where it gets sprayed out the ejection port from the propellant gas its almost like Stoner knew what he was doing.

The Russians are working on a AK called AKB-521 were the bolt sits in the upper receiver, that could solve the optics problem. If they can produce it...

One of the aspects of infantry Combat is that somebody has to carry every “ pew pew “. This comes down to weight. In Vietnam the M16 allowed more pew pews to be carried by squads and ammunition runners. Which meant more pew pews down range. Nobody wants to run out so they conserve Ammo. The M16 simply made pew pews go for a longer time.

Awesome video.. I have both ARs and AK enjoy shooting both...

The 7.62x39 was a superior cartridge for dense jungle warfare in Vietnam because 5.56 the lightweight bullet gets deflected firing through heavy brush where the heavier 7.62 Soviet got deflected much less if at all. Overall I think the m16A1 is ergonomically and superior designed weapon. Being able to pop 2 pins and completely replace the entire barrel and half the firing components in seconds is a huge advantage to longevity and maintaining the weapon. AK’s barrels are much much harder to replace when worn out or damaged. Also the use of aluminum makes the weapon easier to carry, wield and more corrosion resistant especially from rusting. AK’s notoriously rust.

I don’t agree that a ak-47/akm barrel will have a shorter life than a m16 barrel. The ak barrel being cold hammer forged, thicker and firing a cartridge that is much lower pressure than 5.56 will exceed the life of a skinny m16 barrel firing a higher pressure cartridge

I have to point out to you that in every one of your descriptions the American rifles failed in war. The AK platform showed up ready to go. Also you can put accessories on AKMs they have rails just not the ones you are displaying.

Ar 15- massive and rapid improvements increasing the effectiveness of the platform. Ak 47- iron sights work fine comrade

Just a bit of clarification, as it is true that Hitler was not very fond of the STG43/44 or MP44 the decision against adobting it earlier in the war was not solely based on Hitler and it was not completely irrational thinking on his part. And there there have been different voices and opinions about the weapon itself present to him. There have been several, often competing, factions within the Germany when it comes to weapon system and weapon development. And often enough it was a finall decision made by Hitler that would either approve or decline certain projects and prototypes when different branches of the military would compete with each other. For example the German military it self was not extremely fond of the Stgw43/44 either, as it meant they had to manufacture and supply a new cartridge. A cartridge which they had not used before. So they would require new tooling, machines and new supply infrastructure in a situation where the German military was already in serious trouble with supplying their troops sufficently with the weapons they already had. So the decision against the adobtion of the rifle, was somewhat guided by such consideration. Testing with the weapon in the field however as the development continued has later proven the quality of the weapon and where future engagements would lead to. But just as how the German military feared in the begining actually supplying the troops with enough weapons and more importantly with enough amunition has been always a serious problem and the industry was always far behind the goals the military set for the numbers they demanded.

Another big difference is the continuous improvements made to the M16 and M4 platforms. Largely unnoticed by the public.

I agree with almost everything that was said here. My opinion in the final analysis only differs in one respect. The 5.56 NATO round is dependant on velocity. And by shortening the barrel you also shorten the effective range and limit the effect of the round on impact with soft targets. The M4 is the finest rifle for house to house close-up and/or rear echelon fighting in production today. But I still believe that the longer barrel of the M16 should be the standard on a battlefield.

I think the AK is a better field rifle. It’s easier to repair and keep running, easier to correct malfunctions overall, and for short to intermediate assaulting it is adequate. That being said, overall the AR platform is more modular, a bit more accurate and if I was still in the military with said logistics I would want my M4 back. If I was in a long ongoing SHTF apocalyptic scenario with no end in sight I would use one of my AK’s.

I present the true test as this: how did the platform fare during the process of modernization? The M-16 to the M-4 compared to the AK-47 to the AK-14. And not the commercial Gucci guns, military issue. The AR platform, as a whole, has taken to that far better than the AK. That being said, if I had to have one, an AK works just fine, but if I had a choice, a modern AR would be it.

Always look forward to seeing your videos and learning more details.

You should do one one just the cartridge 5.56 vs 5.45

I know you've mentioned in the past Chris, that Colt tested the AR in all sorts of temperatures and environments, and while guntuber's torture test isn't scientific, it does seem to back your claim that ARs do better in mud than the AK. However, all designs have pros and cons, and these same guntubers did similar test in extreme cold and the AK seems to preform better. Again, not realistic to drench your gun in water and freeze it, however my guess because metal does contract when cold, this may work against the AR's tighter tolerance? I've never had artic training, however a colleague that had said the best thing you can do is lub like there's no tomorrow in those conditions.

In the 2000‘s the availability of a better cartridge for the AR changed everything. The 300BLK and other caliber options made it superior.

Very good video, I broadly agree. Couple exceptions… Though I have personally never seen combat, I did serve in the Army infantry during the 80s and have known many combat vets over the years. I work at a steel mill where we have a lot of guys who saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I was shopping for my first military-style semiautomatic rifle back in ‘16, of course I was debating between the 5.56 AR or the 7.62x39mm AK. Informally polling my combat vet coworkers, the consensus among them was that if I were only going to get one such rifle (my intention at that time), that it should be the AK. They thought the 7.62x39mm was a better practical fighting cartridge, and also noted the ruggedness and easy maintenance of the AK. My own exposure to the AK during OPFOR training while I was in uniform also impressed me with the rugged simplicity of the AK design and the punchiness of the round. I suspect my coworkers had the respect they did for the 7.62x39mm was because the M855 rounds they were issued were found wanting in terms of prompt lethality; they often did not cause immediately incapacitating injuries and just zipped through the enemy fighters, whereas our guys who got hit by 7.62x39mm were out of the fight right away. I have heard this from multiple veterans. On the other hand, I had a junior high school teacher who had been an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam. He said the M-16 was extremely lethal; specifically, said getting hit by one within 100 yards was “…like getting hit with a 30-‘06”. But he had the old M193 round, which out of a 20” barrel actually does perform extremely well. It does seem like our guys in the GWOT/Iraq were shortchanged by the M855, which was really designed more for use out of the M249 and specifically to pierce Warsaw Pact steel helmets at long range, but suffered in terms of terminal ballistics. Then there’s also the newer Mk262 and M855A1 rounds; the former especially seems to be vastly better than the M855, and of course the 7.62x39mm, albeit more expensive. So five years after I got my AK, along comes the Russian ammo ban, and I decided it would be a good idea to “diversify” my arsenal with a 5.56 platform, which of course had to be an AR. So I get a 20” barrel Windham Weaponry model and “rediscover” the advantages of that platform, especially the ease with which I can deliver both rapid and accurate fire. And that really is, to me, the clinching advantage of the AR. Yes, with enough practice and skill, decent accuracy can be squeezed out of a good AK, but the AR makes it easier, and at the end of the day, assuming cartridges of broadly comparable power, the higher volume of more accurate fire wins the battle….just as Colonel Moore described at Ia Drang. That is the fundamental advantage of the AR over the AK.

Im still a firm beleiver that the stg44 had huge influences on the ak47.

Hi Chris, I am a loyal viewer of your channel and I consider it one of the most valuable substantively. I do not hide that I draw a lot of knowledge from it... thanks to you. However, I must say that the last material failed me. I expected more from him, especially reflection on these two platforms. Unfortunately, I repeated many trite theses, which without being placed in context are very superficial. And that's not your style, I feel. I don't want you to take it as a sermon because I have no right to do so. In my humble opinion, the AK (AK mod. 1947) in the 50s and 60s was the most advanced small arms system taking into account the conclusions from the battlefields of the WW2. The weapon was compact with an optimal barrel length, with the possibility of mounting a silencer (PBS-1) for which a special cartridge was developed, with the possibility of mounting in special versions of optics including night vision (NSP-1), etc., and all this in the period when the US was implementing the M14 based on the archaic Garand on too powerful cartridge, a small magazine, with a long 20-inch barrel, too long, too heavy, too clumsy. The same was true for FN FALA or G3. These were all important constructions, but archaic. All of them were based on WW2 assumptions more than AK - G3=Stg45, M14 = Garand, FN FAL = FAL49 = G43 = SWT40. In fact, the AR15 and this also follows from your materials appeared in the US Army by accident. If it wasn't for the Vietnam War, it is not known how long the M14 was in service, maybe like the G3 or FN FAL in the in European armies. In my opinion, the AR15 platform gained an advantage over the AK only at the turn of the 90s and 2000s, when the 1913 rail was introduced on a large scale, which led to the birth of the modularity of this platform. And we're not talking about tape-mounting commercial flashlights or optics in the style that Larry Vickers is talking about. All this was improvisation, in contrast to the systemic and modular solutions in the context of AK. In the second half of the 2000s, the GWOT experience was followed by a rash of companies in the US, such as Magpul, which dealt with the accessories and modularity of the AR15 platform. Untill then, there was nothing. Previously, the AR15 platform was less modular and gave less accessory capabilities than the AK. I think it is frivolous to compare the M4a1 and its capabilities to the AKM or even to the AK74, because the period between them is 30-40 years. And that's the same as comparing the Ford Mustang from 1967 to the Tesla from 2010. Please take this only as my opinion. Yours sincerely, Adrian

If you've made a video on the Sign Spear, I haven't seen it. I'm sure your opinion is very colorful!

Every time I went out on patrol in Vietnam with Australian forces I gave thanks to my governments decision to use the FN FAL (L1A1) in 7.62 Nato. Mine was the F1 shorter verion issued to special forces. I knew I had the Rolls Royce of assault rifles at the time and it never gave me any grief. It would be another ten years before the M16 had all its problems sorted out. Now our military have to put up with the L88 Steyr AUG, but special forces use the M4. I remember when we wnt on special recce patrols into Cambodia. We were issued with AKs for those. The AK was the perfect short range assault rifle for a person with zero arms training.

I mean realistically the major issue is difference in tactics. We use alot of close air and night fighting since the start of gwot so the rifle was needed to do that so it happened. And we have the advantage of having delta and devgru who need this stuff first, who often go to the civilian sector to look at new upgrades to their systems. Free float handguards, long rails, lpvo scopes, red dots all these things started as civilian competition items. Then these things trickle down over time to big army. Biggest thing for us is the civilian sector and money. Now Russians still have state arsenals, they primarily fight with heavy armor and ground troops not air. Since they don't really use these things for the most part the rifle has never been asked to do this, except when it is like in Syria when you're seeing spetsnaz guys with 105s and eotechs, with peq15s. It can be done with an ak, but the biggest reason it's not is money and it doesn't generally fit their tactics. And that's kind of being seen with the ak12 program thus far. Plastic 1913 rails out front for grips, and flashlights, your not putting a laser on there and the top cover which might hold zero but then again you have no optics worth anything anyway. The money just isn't there, look at the cost of making one night fighting setup per soldier between the rifle, laser, optic, and nods. And even still how often does the average Joe use his nods and laser and night fight, I'd venture to say not often. So I doubt everyone needs all that, optic is the biggest thing.

I love both platforms but I I hear a bump in the night or shrf and I just need to grab a rifle my first instinct is the AKM

M4 and AK have same sight radius so saying AK has short sight radius is a disadvantage should be same for for the M4 as well. And bolt failure during tests? Which? IV8888 tests showed weak point of all these guns are barrels and gas systems like gas tube. A cracked gas tube requires a new one. A drooped barrel on an AK can be fixed by smacking it against a tree.

incredible video, thanks! Also, a comparison / discussion video between an AR15 1in14 and 1in12 twist rate barrels would be awesome too. :D

Although not an assault rifle, MP38 used Aluminum and plastic (bakalite).

Great video and history.

I've tried to love the ak. I've had many and the first two guns I ever bought were aks. The ar15 is better in every way.

Would love to see a video on the “Block III” or URGI program. Keep up the good content Chris👍🏼

One thing to remember, I have one AR, I have three uppers. So, I have three different guns. AK, I have one gun, I have only one gun.

The only problem with the M-4 is the shorter barrel means a loss in velocity. That is not a real problem until you start making longer shots. Great video. Thanks for the time and effort.

09, i was embedded with the ANA in Wardak, as a ETT USMc Marine, The ANa after being taught and trained, to loose old bad habbits, could effectivly engage the enemy at 300+ yards a lot with thier AKs, we transitioned them to the M16sa2s, towards the end, and they were effective over 300 yrds as well.. in the mountains, long range was needed to be effective against the ISIS.. the ANA learned well

Thanks!

One should think of the AK47 as a submachinegun that replaced a rifle, one should think of the M16 as a rifle that replaced submachineguns.

Ironic how M193 is still the best Plain Jane 5.56 round out there and there's solid rationale behind the reason the IDF uses it. M855 doesn't belong in any GP rifle and is inferior to M193 in each and every way. There's no need for any penetration or enhanced penetration round in 5.56 because it sucks for that purpose anyway. No need for any boutique rounds either. Who can afford to shoot 77gr OTM and 69gr BTHP all the time?? M193 will do everything it needs to do inside 200m from a minimum barrel length of 18". Below that threshold it will not reach 3k fps and thus reliably fragment. Either way, proper barrel length, ammo logistics and cost are everything... The Belgians got it right with the FNC and the Israeli's got it right with the X95.

Shot in the dark here: I think you prefer the AR-15/M-16 platform over the AK-47/74. Best guess on my part.

Iv got both, and too me each one fills a specific need ( urban or guerilla)

Great video! I'm listening to this, and I am totally impressed on your knowledge on this subject. You definitely know this subject, and I really enjoyed watching this video. I'm looking forward to watching more.

AR-15 also borrowed a lot of features from the STG44, like the dust cover.