There has been so much commentary I am forced to clarify: Bumble bees can fly, I've seen them do it. my point was that sometimes the "book" doesn't reflect reality. Sometimes the "book" has info that is outdated, irrelevant, or just plain wrong. Don't base your life on the "book" I should have made that clearer.
Paul Harrell I think it was perfectly clear what you meant. It’s always possible to quibble with the details of metaphors and some people really get off on it for some reason.
There is a reason that comment about bees gets a lot of hate from some people. There are a lot of people that like to use it as evidence that science is wrong and BS. The problem is the quote they are using to base their attack on actually is complete BS. Science and engineering can explain bee flight quite well. The quote comes from a couple engineers that were talking in a bar one night, did some back of the napkin calculations and determined that bees do not have enough wing area to support their weight at usual bee air speeds. You know what else has that characteristic? Helicopters. A bee is not a fixed wing aircraft, it's more like a helicopter and they failed to take the flapping of the wings into account. What they actually showed is that bees cannot glide worth a damn, which is true. Yet the anti-vax, flat earth, anti science, creationist types just love to bring out this quote anytime someone challenges them on their ignorance and BS. And of course, it tends to trigger those with more than two brain cells.
@@vinceruland9236 This is the first time I have seen any vids from Paul, so I am still digesting what I saw. But my point is, I was thinking as I was watching that someone should figure out a way to marry the two platforms. Sounds like you might have done just that. Do you think that one could do that but the other way around? In other words, the 556 on the AK platform?
@@1959jimbob the AK74 is pretty close to that. It fires the 5.45x39 round which is very similar to the 5.56. I've never shot one but I've heard really good things about them. Ammo is not as readily available but it's out there.
Both M16 and AK47 are excellent and very effective rifles. Amazing performance in combat condition, maybe the only thing that AK47 have like an advantage over M16 is perhaps less maintenance need 🤔
Another aspect to this story is which one is more LETHAL. Of course any bullet can be lethal, but that very tumbling of an M193 or M855 increases its lethality even though it may not have as many ft pounds of energy. A tumbling bullet tears a lot of things on it's path through the body, perhaps doing even more boney or soft tissue damage than a bullet that just punches straight through. In Iraq I saw an insurgent get shot in the left shoulder right around the shoulder joint at about 150m. When we came up on him and others, I noticed that the only thing still connecting his arm to his body were some skin and a few shreds of muscle. It completely destroyed his shoulder. So traumatic was the injury that that injury caused him to exsanguinate rather quickly.
Well, in terms of POWER, that test with the car kind of determined what the AK-47 is capable of, considering it broke out two windows and punctured a tire. Sometimes you have to point out the obvious.
A stone house is what I always wanted but could never afford. Vinyl siding, particle board, insulation, drywall and oh yeah, paint, are not bullet proof. Sadly!
@@Hjerte_Verke I only meant it in the context of OP. "Years later Pauls videos are the best" I commented years later saying they were still the best. Honestly don't read too much into it, lol.
Yup, I also complimented him in the past about his awesome 80's vibe that he gets in his videos. I"m guessing he's shooting with VHS or has some really high-end filters or an old tv studio camera hooked up to a digital video recorder. I use to do this with an old RCA TV studio camera with a vacuum tube in it that I would hook up via an analog video/audio input on a digital camcorder. The results looked similar to this. At any rate, I love his 80's retro style. Literally a blast from the past! lol
Love how his "informal" tests are more "real world" and feel more accurate than most others! Not to mention, he wants us to draw our own conclusions! Well Done!!
My preference is geographic. If I’m in the states: AR If I’m in the former soviet states: AK It’s whichever has the most replacement parts and stockpiled ammunition.
Yeah, I love AKs and they are my preference but it really is dependent on location. If I was living in the states it wouldn't make sense for me to buy an ak especially now with the Russian ammo ban.
@@sickofhobos you think a guy who never cites sources for his information is "good"? Okay man. He's a parvenu with a pathetic parasocial relationship seeking following. He is nothing more than that. He's also gotten filthy rich off his patreon stooges, whilst still having the nerve to beg for your money so he can buy more toys for himself.
@@KI.765 lmao. Have you ever seen his actual blog? He cites sources there. And have you seen his library? It's filled with very expensive books about antique guns. You think he spends thousands on those books and never uses them? You're an idiot. He is more knowledgeable about a wide range of topics than you will ever be. And you know his other channel doesn't have monetization turned on right? Yet he only cares about money and how many followers he has, right?! ....Right....??😏🙃😏🙃 You are genuinely one of the dumbest people I've ever seen on RU-vid
Come on guys, it's more of a 90s feel to it. They didn't have Isuzu rodeos during the 80s or 70s. But yeah times have come a long way from those times, back in those days you would have had to watch this info on a VHS video you would have had to mail order, and waited 3 to 5 weeks to receive.
Pure American muscle with Isuzu Rodeos and AKs, with 1990s vibes and some degree of British Top Gearish presentation. The fusion kitchen of RU-vid gun videos.
Mosin Nagant: I burned down the house with my muzzle blast and impaled the offending jugs with my bayonet and let the fluids of my victims flush the corrosive primer salts from my bolt face.
Welll he may not have alot of subs but still really cool content I started watching him with the .22lr vs .25 acp where he was talking about how the .25 acp getting shot froma pistol gets compared to a .22lr geting shot from a rifle which is unfair... (learned that when he said it :D ) etc etc lol
You should have seen the look on my dad's face when I was in college. My friend with his 12 gauge and I brought some 00 buck in 2 3/4 inch and 3 inch magnum and some bird shot. We went out in the woods ran out of targets and took my hubcaps off. Shot the hell out of them and put back on the car. Dad shook his head and then had to chuckle especially when we told him about the rattlesnake we shot and grilled.
Clicked on this half expecting a Doug Demuro-style car review. "THIS...is the 1995 Isuzu Rodeo. And it is the worst vehicle you want to drive through Seattle in 2020."
Holret You can, 5.56 are DESIGNED TO DO SO. They're designed to shatter and tumble bouncing around your body creating the biggest amount of damage possible. If you dont know the stuff, don't talk please
The conclusion is... people prefer what they like (usually purchased) and people like to defend their decisions. One rifle is known for its accuracy the other for its dependability. But both now have ( with the help of time/tech) have improved in both areas. BOTH are good rifles.. Great vid as usual Paul!
which one won the battle? both are "military type assault rifles" that many politicians & fellow country men don't think we should be able to own. that's the real battle.
onenikkione, Actually, as our great 2ND AMENDMENT state's in our UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Both of these Rifles should be totally legal in our UNITED STATES for us UNITED STATES Citizens (a G-d given Right to be exact), even if they happen to be both automatic firing Rifles, or both happen to be called- Ringy Dingy Super Tootally Assault Bublinky Cooting-licious Rifles. The only problem we happen to have- is the pro-commies who are infiltrating our UNITED STATES Government, all for their certain fellow traitorous people in the UNITED STATES- who wish to be a gun-less, powerless, defenseless, helpless, hopeless, repressed, controlled, tortured, easily slaughtered, totally doomed people, and who also happen to all be birds of a feather with the pro-communist North Korean way.
@@brittanylovestheoutdoors4043 Any weapon is an "assault" weapon if used in an assaulting role. Any weapon is a "sniper" weapon if used in that role. These distinctions are not as real and solid as the ignorant would have you think.
@@SavageHenry777 an assault weapon is a full auto I use an ar 15 in 3 gum matches at my local gun club kettelfoot rod n gun and the term assault weapon is offensive to me in current times .
@@brittanylovestheoutdoors4043 I got you, yeah "assault rifle" suggests to me there's a fire selector as well and the fact that people confuse ARmalite with Assault Rifle must be annoying.
Wow! I would never have dreamed that the light 5.56mm would penetrate those logs. I'd be dead, as I would have figured I was under good cover, and you just proved, I wasn't. As to your results. I'd say the AK is better at shooting thru heavy cover (cinder blocks) but the AR is better at shredding the shooter on the other side. I'd love to see you experiment done at ranges of 150 yards or more.
After reading some of the comments, I can see why, after each test, Paul says "you be the judge." We all judge things differently. That is why I love Paul's videos.
That's what I can't STAND about these videos. People seeking knowledge need a conclusion from data based on research. NOT "draw your own f---ing conclusions." Otherwise this video and many like it are almost pointless.
Why do shooters get into the mine is better than yours debate? 9 vs .45, 1911 vs. Glock, AR vs AK, "It's the Indian, not the arrow!" Train more! If you have enough money, buy both!
+mojavedesert3381 - Right on. We need to justify having an ever expanding armory in order to fully appreciate the specific firearms. You are my kind of guy. By the way I love taking a few days to go out to Mojave. It is an inviting and pretty magical place. The California City golf course is fun.
I love M16's and AK's both equally. But I prefer hunting with my SKS (which like the AK-47 is also 7.62x39mm although my SKS has a fairly long barrel). I just find that my SKS seems to take down hogs extremely reliably and decisively. Plus it's cheap and robust so I don't need to fuss around much with it or worry about it getting all banged up.
wigon, do you hunt with open sights or did you add a scope? If so, what mounting system did you use? I recently purchased at SKS that seems to group shots pretty well at 100 yards but that is from a rest of course and also difficult to use those iron sights! I had to use a pair of computer reading glasses to get any focus on the irons...
Buy a mount made by Promag (yes, I said Promag a word I thought I would ever hear coming out of my mouth, they cannot make a mag worth a shit but their Scope mount is top the line) it's available through Midway. Don't even think about those pieces of junk that replace the top of the receiver, they are certifiable junk. I know, I have owned them both. The receiver one's start out alright but will inevitable get loose and lose their ability to remain sighted in as the mount gets loose and begins to wobble. You Will be a happy camper and depending on the rifle you own can show some pretty dam good accuracy well within the specs of a 300 Meter combat weapon! You're right. the combat sights suck for us afflicted with "aging" eyes and hard learned wisdom. If I knew I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself (truthfully probably not, but is was a nice thought). However I had more fun than a barrel of monkeys and I was the Head "Bonzo"!
Excellent video, this demonstrates the flaws in solely looking at a ballistics chart to interpret their significance, say, between the terminal performance of two separate rifle cartridges; quantitative data and real world results should be used together to obtain a better picture of our hypothesis. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the only language that works when objectively describing a cartridges inherent power (more correctly, energy) is it's kinetic energy from the muzzle. However, this doesn't tell us important things like the amount of energy that the actual projectile has left when it hits its target, and how the bullet transfers that energy to a target due to its behavior upon impact. Since this is how a bullet displaces and deforms soft tissue and organs, this is really what we want to know about a cartridge. The only problem is that this is more difficult to measure quantitatively, so to find the answer... we shoot shit to find out :D
As far as the hydrostatic shock test, I actually though I noticed the 7.62mm making the water jugs fly further than .223 did. Though I suspect the damage appears greater on the .223 because the rounds were faster, they dumped a higher percentage of their force into the water quicker than the 7.62mm, which likely passed through the water slower and thus dumping its energy slower, leading to the water being able to all go through the same exit. Whereas on the .223, the water was forced to find any exit it could and that meant more devastating ruptures on the jugs themselves. This is pure speculation by me, but it would sort of go in line with the 7.62 penetrating further with less interruption of the structure by the bullet. Possibly the combination of lower speed and high energy means the material, which generally "wants" to get out of the way of the round as it passes through, is better able to given the additional bit of time.
An excellent video, Mr.Harrell, thanks for going to the time and trouble of making it. An important and often-overlooked factor in the performance of these respective rifles lies in the design of the ammunition intended for use in them, in particular standard military-issue ammunition. According to the Geneva and Hague Conventions on Land Warfare, hollow-point and/or expanding projectiles/bullets are inhumane and therefore illegal for use in warfare by the signatory nations. At the time the AR15/M16 and AKM/AK47 were adopted, both the USSR and the U.S. issued full-metal jacket (FMJ) or "ball" ammunition for these weapons, i.e., a lead core surrounded by a gilding metal jacket. As noted in the video, M193 .224-cal. 55-grain for the American design, 123-grain 7.62x39mm FMJ for the Russian one. So far, so good. During the 1950s, the Commanding General of CONARC, U.S. Army General Willard G. Wyman, put together a request for development of a lightweight automatic rifle which was required to meet a number of ambitious design criteria. It's design was to be more-compact and lighter in weight than its .30-caliber predecessors, the Garand and M14, capable of controllable select-fire operation, and firing a smaller, .224-caliber cartridge capable of supersonic flight at 500 yards, equivalent or superior to the M-1 Carbine .30-cal. round in lethality. The weapon was optimized for combat within the envelope of 0-300 yards, but still powerful enough to be lethal at 500-600 yards. In order to meet these ambitious design criteria, chief engineer Eugene Stoner and his team designed a .224-caliber cartridge firing a 55-grain FMJ bullet with cannelure (crimping groove), which was designed to fragment into a high-velocity blast cone at/above about 2700 fps MV. This somewhat unorthodox solution allowed the 5.56x45mm M193 Ball cartridge to be as lethal as its much larger and heavier .308-caliber 147-150-grain FMJ predecessors, while still remaining light and having modest recoil. Stoner exploited a useful characteristic of lightweight high-velocity bullets - their dynamic instability or tendency to yaw and then tumble upon encountering a solid or nearly solid object. All spitzer (pointed) bullets are tail-heavy, and are kept in proper nose-first allignment only by the enormous rotational spin imparted to them by the barrel rifling. Upwards of 150,000 rpms or more. Upon encountering a target, the 55-grain bullet will want to "swap ends," and in so doing, will fragment, producing not one, but multiple wound tracks. Thereby enhancing the lethality of the shot. This fragmentation effect is clearly evident in the barrier testing. The 55-grain bullets make a clean entry hole but fragment and break-apart once they encounter a barrier, just as they are designed to do. The 123-grain FMJ 7.62x39mm round, containing a more-conventional, heavier and tougher FMJ bullet than the American cartridge, holds together better when passing through barriers, although it too does eventually fragment. More to the point, it was not - as far as historical sources tell at any rate - designed to shatter and fragment upon hitting a target. As noted in the video, since the Russian cartridge is traveled at a significantly lower MV than its 55-grain counterpart, this too helps it hold together better than the U.S. projectile. In short, then, we see on display two different design philosophies and two different weapons systems, designed to do basically the same job, but which go about it in somewhat different ways. One using a larger, heavier and slower bullet, the other using a smaller, lighter and higher-velocity projectile to accomplish the same task. Imitation, it has been said, is the sincerest form of flattery. If that's the case, both designers - Eugene Stoner and Mikhail Kalashnikov - should be flattered, because Russia and the U.S. eventually adopted design variants with features from the other side's weapons and ammo. The Russians adopted their 5.45x39, a cartridge very similar in performance to the old M193 55-grain round, for use in their AK74 series. And later on, the U.S. adopted - in special ops units, for example - the 300 Blackout, a cartridge whose characteristics mirror those of 7.62x39. What goes around comes around....
Thanks for the informative post. I am a fan of both cartridges, 7.62x39 for close quarters, and 5.56 for further reach. I like the dynamics of the AR platform, so I built an AR chambered in 7.62x39. It was my favorite build to date.
Hey brother I found your channel a couple of days ago! You are really a hidden gem of guns community! Excellent content , very informative and very calm voice! You should be up there with the biggest gun channels on RU-vid! I hope this will happen before the feminazi youtube boss bans everything! Just to make sure, start uploading on full30. I love what you do and I don't want to see it gone! Keep it up man!
Overall I would have to say its a wash. AK does a little bit better through barriers while AR causes more tissue damage. AR is probably better for combat in the plains and open field while AK is better for jungles and areas with foliage and obstacles.
the question isnt tissue damage its which round puts the enemy down quickest. A bigger heavier bullet going at fast speeds will always put somebody down faster and with fewer rounds than a smaller but still fast bullet due to the amount of energy it will disperse over its target. It doesnt matter if the enemy dies in 3 days time if they can still shoot at you now
7.62 better on deer.... .223 better on smaller game.... Horses for courses.... but either round will do the job on either target. Both arms are fine rifles.... take your pick or better still get one of each!
Kathryn Truscott ... There is much more hydrostatic shock in the 5.56 round if your hunting deer tho . Yes smaller projectile but the shock it causes to the tissue around it cannot be matched by the AK round . Lol yes if you want to shoot through cynder blocks than by all means the AK should be your choice . I've taken deer with an AR ,an ,AK , a .270 Winchester , and a .30-06 and the .223 performed as well as the larger cartridges and in actuallity the AK actually performed the least effectively of all the rounds . I had to track the deer about 300 yards , even though I hit him directly in the heart/lung . The .223 dropped him as did the .270 and .30-06 . And I know I didn't shoot from the same distance and all that stuff but still , those are my personal experiences .
@@doniphan72ify My grandfather went deer hunting with an AR-15 in 5.56, and then an M1 carbine in .30 carbine. Despite the 5.56 being half the weight and 2/3 the diameter, he said they dropped deer much quicker and made nastier wounds because they tumbled and fragmenting like a hillary clinton speech.
@@joshmvfx: Well for a long time in my state neither of those calibers were allowed hunting deer. (Rules were .23 caliber centerfire or larger, and NO .30 Carbine...Mostly because they were considered too small and weak for the job.)
The 7.62x39 weighs more like between 1/3 and 1/2 more han the 5.56. No, you cannot carry twice as much 5.56 for the same weight. It's more like 300 for the 7.62x39's 200. Is that a factor? Of course, but it's by and large small fry. About 6 or about 8 pounds for 200 rounds of one or the other, more relevant for military morale than for personal use.
That doesn't say anything. If you punch someone they will move with force, but if you stab them they might not even notice at first even though you are doing far more damage. That's why the 5.45 was called the poison bullet.
I love AKs but I'll take the AR because I'm tired of dealing with mag issues. Some AKs have tight mag wells that like steel mags and other AKs have more open mag wells that require polymer mags to avoid wobble. My AR ins't as reliable but it's much more accurate and I know that any mag I ever find will fit perfectly. Also, I can carry a lot more 55gr ammo than 123gr ammo. Anyone that doubts 5.56 effectiveness is extremely ignorant.
Thanks for a great video. I have shot Deer with both calibres (from bolt action rifles .223 Howa 1500 and 7.62x39 Ruger) and they have both done the job. But the 7.62x39 visually seems to hit them harder, they run less, and drop faster. I'd say the .223 is a lovely flat shooting round, but its probably marginal on deer, where the 7.62 at moderate ranges just whacks em. I love both rounds, and its always a last minute decision as to which rifle goes on the shoulder.
@@karlhans6678it’s simple physics it’s a lighter 22 caliber bullet whereas the 7.62 soviet is a heavier 30 caliber bullet it doesn’t take a genius to know which one got more stopping power
Something not mentioned..the Ak will reliably eat hollow point, lead nose and fmj at will. The cheap stuff. It is very happy with that diet. Try that with an AR. I have tested empirically like Paul has and I have made my decision for my truck gun. M92 Pap. With a streamlight...that simple. I advise shorter mags for in and around your vehicle with extra mags being of the fullsize variety. There are some subsonic varieties of 7.62x39 as well including the interesting 220 grainers. Great Vids Paul. I'm sorry you have so many people giving you crap about your videos and Information. You sir are one of the nicest and most we'll informed presenters in this genre. Thank You.
It's funny, that the deciding factor for me, was not the difference in terminal ballistics, easy of use, accuracy, etc, etc, etc. It is ONE difference that made THE difference. Although it rarely rained in Iraq... the wind would blow all the time. This gets sand damn near everywhere. Just a little wind and sand would take my M4 out of a fight. Scary and frustrating. I still have nightmares about hearing the bolt scrapping and jamming in the receiver and being unable to return fire. Just my experience and opinion, but I will only use an AK 47. It is a work horse I can RELY on with my life. I can't say the same for the AR. I have since then watched Robski perform his torture test on tons of different AK variants and manufacturers both USA and other country made rifles. There is no way an AR produces the same results with the same brutal abuse. The issues I had with my M4 in combat were also experienced by many others. Perhaps new M4's or a different AR platform would have performed better in the less than ideal conditions....but that's what we had and that's the experience I got. Even the ARs I owned back home would produce random failures in near perfect conditions. The choice for me is still VERY clear. I have also sold every AR I owned because I am certain the AKs I have will not fail me. Another significant factor to me is that the 5.56 NATO cartridge was designed to allow infantrymen to carry more ammo. That means it was NOT designed to do more damage than what we used previously. The data shows that the vast majority of shots fired in combat don't hit bad guys. I've been in plenty of combat and I agree with that data unfortunately LOL. Having more ammo essentially wins this battle of attrition in the mind of our leaders back in the 60's with good reason. Knowing what we do today, thanks to channels like Paul's, it is that shot placement is the key to stopping your intended target. We could have easily continued to use the bullets and weapons we had and spent the money on TRAINING. Effectively making the shooters' hit ratio greatly increase. That "would" have been a better expenditure of funds in my opinion. Today, that thought process doesn't make much sense to me. A soldier can easily carry a full combat load (210 rounds = seven 30 round mags) of 7.62x39 OR 5.56 NATO. We also don't fight like we did in WW I, WW II or Vietnam. We don't have massive numbers of ground forces running into each other and shooting it out. The engagements we do have are small in comparison. SO, it will ultimately come down to shooter ability rather than cartridge of choice. Even today, the money is better spent on training instead of designing a new platform/cartridge. Think about this... even 200 years from now, when we have laser guns that dish out way more "power" and shoot in a nearly straight line for 1000M, it will again, come down to shooter ability.... which means the money should be spent on training as always.
@@WarNoob755 Yes, I did. The results were mixed. It did resist the sand and dust a little better, but would have OTHER failures due to the friction between parts.... which is what the oil is meant to prevent. So trading one problem for another wasn't a good solution in my opinion. My results with the rifle in combat were purely in a desert... so it's probably the worse spot you can take it. Back home in the US, it runs far more reliable, especially if you're not on top of a truck the whole time exposing it to all the stuff that is flying around. The AR platform is a good system, no question. I just prefer the AK for my 0-300M weapon slot. Hope the info helps.
Good stuff. Always wanted to fire an AK-47, but this demonstration satisfied a bit of my curiosity. I fell in love with the M-16 in the Army simply because I was able to qualify as expert with it, so it suited me well. Apparently, teaching kids to shoot with BB & pellet guns from a young age serves well for later on. My best Christmas ever was when there was a Remington semi-automatic tube fed .22 rifle under the tree with my name on it.☺ Thumbs up!
Would love to see a remake of this video comparing the effectiveness of 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm on the new and improved meat target with high-tech fleece bulletstop.
Your comment about variability of car doors is correct. I repaired cars for GM for years and disassembled thousands of doors. Typically, the driver's door has significantly more "stuff" in it than any other door.
I’m a professional retired military with 9 years “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Afghanistan, I watched your video and I can’t imagine why you would conduct this very cool test with an obsolete M193 Ball 55 grain cartridge. There is a good reason why U.S. Military switched to 62 grain M855 Green Tip in 1980s. In Iraq I was often issued MK262 77 grain Sierra Match ammunition for longer, precision shots with 20” M16 platform sniper rifle (photos available). I would love to see you record part 2 of this presentation using M855 (old and new M855, redesigned around 2010 with triple the size of the Tungsten penetrator) and MK262 ammo.
The 7.62X39 was FMJ. To make a fair comparison I had to compare it to 5.56 that was also FMJ. If I used 62 gr. Steel core I would compare it to 5.45X39 with the approximate projectile. But I don't own a rifle in caliber 5.45X39
Great test, did it start something like: "Honey can you pick me up a used car and on your way home grab some cinder blocks to put my pot plants on and some soda?" 'Opens gun locker'
Great vid here. They are so close on most of these tests besides cinder blocks that you can't really tell. I believe the 7.62x39 has more "knock down power" out to a certain range, but at my skill level the5.56 NATO is a more predictable round at 150-300 yards than when I shoot the 7.62x39 out of my SKS. The 5.56 flys a more true path through the air because it drops less. The AR-15 seems to be far more user friendly with the way everything is set up than the times I have used AKs too, but AKs and the SKS are easier to strip and clean. EDIT: If it was a fight inside 100 yards I would want a 7.62x39 chambered weapon with high capacity detachable mags. If it was going to go past 100 yards I would want the AR-5.56. Since you don't really know how far a fight could be, I'd take the AR even though I actually like shooting my SKS better.
...but he messed up the car doors experiment by rolling down the window of the second front door...so the AK47 bullets had to go through a glass window extra.
There has to be a problem with the space time continuum on your channel. The 20 minute video shrank into what appeared to be 3 minutes and I felt that I went back in time to emerge in the present knowing more than when I started this trek with you. Nicely done - No flash All substance!
If I'm by myself. I'll take an M4/M16A2/AR15. If I'm with a group. I might take an AK-47/AKM just to add extra firepower for the team. I actually like both firearms.
Your videos have consistently been unbiased, logically sound, and greatly entertaining. I'm glad to see how this channel has succeeded over the years. Keep up the good work!
your testing shooting through 2 car doors and 3 sheets of plywood is just frikkin' brilliant in my mind. this has to be the best comparison test I've NEVER thought of.
*Excellent* As an owner of both I know one thing: I wouldnt want a group of people, angry people shooting them at me. Glad I didn't join the marines in 2001 because I shot these two. Ended up getting shot in the line of duty anyways but thats a another story
while in iraq, my guys did some ballistic testing on 3/8 inch steel; ak47 vs m4 vs 7.62x57. the ak round dented and did not penetrate the steel; the 7.62x57 did better, most rounds penetrated but looked like a struggle; the 5.56mm shot through each time, the hole was perfect, like a drill was used.
Condition: Bad. However it does have some custom ventilation. Mileage is high and where it came from? Japan I guess. And yes, we've upgraded camera equipment since this was filmed.
