For the record, I don't think Americans belong in Ukraine. However, I think everyone has the right to choose their own destiny. America is not the world’s police force. If you want to understand the lineage of this project you should watch Ryan’s companion video: ru-vid.com_l6kBiy3M98?feature=share
@@AK_Respecter The people of Donbas were against Igor Girkin's antics. The DPR/LPR were entirely a FSB creation that snowballed and it was Russians without any links to the Donbas who kickstarted the fight. And it is our business because we promised Ukraine security in exchange for nuclear disarmament.
Hey, Ukrainian here. Well in situation like we had in February, every rifle was good enough. And we have a significant market of AR-15 in Ukraine. And a lot of people entered Territorial Defense Forces with their privately owned rifles based on AR-15 like those from Savage or IWI. So whether it has semi only, or 1:8 twist it doesn't matter. As long as it can shoot the enemy it is good enough.
@@tzenzhongguo yup, been so since 1991. Any citizen can own a smooth bore gun from the age of 18 and rifled barreled gun from age of 25. Provided they have all the permits. Gun ownership was regulated by special act of the ministry of internal affairs. But exactly one day before the invasion on the 23 of February the separate "Gun law" was passed. As for now, citizens cannot own short concealed firearms like pistols, but right now it is a point of the debate to allow people buy and own pistols.
People underestimate the sheer volume of 39 ammo they already have. It would be hundreds of pallets of alternative calibers to even come close. Then you have multiple firearms in the same group drawing from two completely different supply pools. As it stands, logistics drops off some nice vintage soviet steel cans of ammo, and literally everyone gets rearmed. I doubt there's a single guy that would want a firearm that requires non-standard ammunition. That's not a worry anyone needs when waiting on supply. That is completely ignoring that the war isn't going to be won with small arms, this is not that kind of conflict.
The territorial defence forces use a mix of 556, 762 and 545. The logistics support they are getting from far far more wealthy western nations (US, UK) means they can afford the extra complications.
@@tomsoki5738 not quite right. If we are talking about civil guns in territorial defence 7.62 is almost missed from civil market long before the full scale war. For the latest ipsc training we have before invasion, my mates were already buying the leftovers in different shops of barnaul ammo factory rounds for price like *2 from .223 price. In Ukraine t's rarely that someone store in home (for some reason) more than 1-2k of ammos of one caliber. Standard load is like 600 ammos for one infantry person, as far as I can remember. And 1200 for paratroopers. I may be wrong in this numbers, but what I'm trying to say, even rounds amount stored in home is not really enough to use them in intense combat. And 7.62 became quite expensive and rare before the invasion. In barricades in Kyiv personally I saw not a lot of people with civil weapons, and civil weapons were mostly ar-15s and different shotguns. Once I even saw smth like mp38 (in 9*21 i suppose, as it's only legal pistol caliber in Ukraine). If we are talking about aks given by police and UAF - it was only 5.45. both for territorial defence and drafted soldiers in UAF. Yeah, some time later we began to see interesting guns like m14, m4, few kinds of machine guns. That cool stuff appeared in territorial defence.
What I love most is how we've got actual Ukrainians in the chat saying that the 5.56 nato is not in short supply and neither are AR-15 rifles and other people are still talking about how the logistics are irrefutable. Guess it's best to ask the people rather than making a statement based on incomplete Intel.
@@Seth9809 Probably for their own sporting rifles. Rifle ownership was a thing before the invasion. It would sort of be like if the US was invaded and some people took up arms with their personal AK's from their collections. Although 5.56 NATO and .223 would be everywhere, there would still be a shit-ton of commercial 7.62x39 floating around.
Yep Ryan ended up making a fool of himself while trying to dunk on George Takei, imagine that! 🤣 Too bad most of his audience is too uninformed to notice. BTW yeah we're capable of looking at barrel twists before sending them over. No you can't have any of mine.
I came here from ryans short about the experiment. Love this video and your channel now. I had no idea about barrel twist, I'm a smooth bore shotgun and pistol shooter, so i wasn't aware how much barrel twist effected grouping and projectile tumble. Now ive got a lot of reading and learning about barrel twist for different barrels/calibers
I shoot long range. Twist rate is mostly about stability in a bullet at a particular weight. Heavier bullets need more twist to stabilize but over doing twist to a particular bullet can actually cause more issues. Internal ballistics can get crazy. At high levels, guys get barrels that are bored at very particular lengths and twist rates for the specific bullet they are shooting and then load that cartridge to be precise relative to the lands of the bore. Some guys will even ‘chase the lands’ as the bore wears over time. It’s crazy out here. To be fair this is most typical in long range bolt action rifles.
Yeah the caliber and purpose of the rifle often mandate the barrel twist. You'll see a whole different design for a 6.5 grendel and a military .308 sniper rifle
They're already here in Ukraine, a lot of ar15, some are domestically manufactured by Zbroyar and others, and they are used by the government as well. Regarding the rounds mismatch - bullshit, no one puts some random rounds into their rifle without checking. Squads and other units are usually assembled having the same caliber rifles for similar roles. Also I haven't seen an AR15 here with the barrel twist of 1:9" , our most populaar stores have only 1:7" and 1:8", so it's not an issue either.
For the bullets, the main argument is simply availability. You have much more stocks of the ammunition that is compatible with your current weaponry. You don't have enormous stocks of AR15 ammo.
@@thysonsacclaim the 5.45 / 7.62x39 stocks are not infinite, they're almost empty, it's already 8th year of the war and we don't have any significant manufacturing of those calibers, so it's about time to completely switch to NATO calibers.
Russia Annexed Crimea, and have been occupying and backing separtists in the eastern territories since 2014. So his point being, the military has been fighting and training troops for this war for at least 8 years using a finite ammunition supply.
@@OACustom Russian troops invaded Ukraine 8 years ago, they are fighting against Ukraine in Donbas for 8 years without any identifying marks, every commander of so-called separatists is Russian. Stop watching Fox and other Russian propaganda.
I’m so happy I just decided to pick 1-8 twist because it’s the middle of the road. Mainly because I reload so I figured well since I would probably be testing all kinds of stuff.
A short answer to "Are Civilian Rifles Good Enough to Send to Ukraine?" is - Yes, sure! in March in saw everything starting from DiamondBack and up to Daniel Defence M4A1 Socom
Not every rifle goes to the front. Rear facing untis (or units not engaged in direct combat) can definitely make due with a regular pew over a pewpewpew.
I forgot to add that the Ukrainians are crafty engineers and your puny civilian pew will likely get converted to a pewpewpew. THAT thing civilians aren't allowed to do 😂
I think barrel quality played a large part in the 1/8 twist rifle's performance too, the DelTon and M4gery rifles are fairly budget rifles being put head to head against a fairly high end brand like seekins precision. I wouldn't expect those rifles to be as accurate regardless of twist rate.
4 moa, 1" @100m, 4" @100m, 20" @500m I've never seen an m4/M16 rifle that bad. Maybe 5" at the high end at 500m, if that. Any worse and it is 100% bad form by the shooter.
@@TheJBerg I have to agree 100% with your take. I went with a Milspec and didn’t ever get the results with my 1:7 twist barrel nor did I ever shoot high at 300 yrds with and of the bullet weights they used. Maybe form is the issue. Of course, sighting in my scope at 25 yrds was never ever considered. I was always tights to sight at 100 yrds and then compensate for distance afterwards.
The performance on the 1:7 gun mirrors the performance of the M-16. I shot my Colt AR-15A2 on the USMC KD requal course (I am a retired USMC officer). I easily shot expert. (We used iron sights in those days) .
All kinds of rifles over there. The US has sent over a lot of 5.56 and there were also private donations from ammo companies. Earlier in the year the US also sent over most of the M4A1 carbines in storage. Ukraine has some elite units in border patrol with BCM AR-15's for years now and the CZ Bren 2 is all over the place. CZ sent over a few thousand of them. Their own bullpup (Malyuk) is also occasionally chambered in 5.56 for elite units. According to a recent interview with with a foreign volunteer the biggest issue is not having your rifle (likely a Bren 2) disappear from the armory if you are getting some R&R. The corruption is real. They all know the guys with sticky fingers but nobody wants to listen. The Ukrainians are still all hands on deck.
A logistics commenter on Macbeth's earlier video also shared your opinion. From the bullet incompatibility to the lack of spare parts readily available. I wholeheartedly agreed with him, as we were getting flamed in the comment section. It is my opinion that we should let the U.S military handle armaments because a) they have up-to-date knowledge of the situation, b) unlike us civies, they can buy and produce bulk weapons at a cheaper bargain, While us civies will pay a premium for auto disabled rifles which are at a huge disadvantage in house to house combat, and c) incompatible bullets and lack of spare parts in case of malfunctions and wear and tear. I argue that as civies, we have better access to various toiletries, non perishables, entertainment, and medical supplies. Therefore our money would be better spent buying thousands of toilet paper rolls for the Ukrainians and volunteers rather than buying only 1 auto-disabled gun at a premium price and maybe 5 cartridges worth of ammo...
@@fullm3taljacket It was just a way to have cities use gun buyback programs to take away guns for a higher purpose (thus the city government is sending the guns to Ukraine).
The US government actually has very little ability to produce large, military sized, amounts of small arms like rifles. That's all done in Europe by companies like H&K and FN. There aren't really any arms manufacturers of that size in the US and really haven't been for a long time. That's why you can find Vietnam Era M16s made by GM, GE, International Harvester and a bunch of other regular manufacturers
>Ukrainian SOF using 5.56 weapons for years >iNcOmPaTiBlE pArTs US volunteers LITERALLY are bringing their OWN weapons for six months now. But I guess just using stereotypes about Ukrainians only able to use AKs coming from same people that brought you "russia won't invade" and "Kyiv will fall in 3 days" just won't die eh. "Incompatible weapons" is a dead horse. Stop beating the poor thing! American government, also, has a very poor understanding of "defensive war" in general, and while Ukrainian delegation TRIED to explain to them what's needed, it takes time for US senators and congressmen to even comprehend what it is when you don't have complete air superiority in combat. SO, if you want to know what Ukraine REALLY needs, look to any people actually here: From actual foreign volunteers doing supply like Ripley's Heroes, to local charities like Come Back Alive, all are doing military procurement, they will tell you which optics, drones, armor, armaments etc. they need... from Ford trucks and commercial quadcopters to night vision optics for NATO-chambered rifles, a lot of which we already have donated, bought, or brought by foreigners joining TDF.
My quick 2 cents before watching the whole video: 1: Will they be good when sent? Yes, if the ammo is there, and if the barrel twist is 1:7-1:8. 2: Is it worth the cargo space? Hell no. You want to make an impact? Send SRBMs, howitzers, and artillery munitions, not infantry rifles.
There are already a number of AR-15 rifles present in Ukraine before the war, such as the Zbroyar Z-15 (which is made in Ukraine) and the Savage MSR-15. In addition, other 5.56mm weapons already in use include the MCX and Fort-221/224, the latter being the Tavor built under license, made in both 5.56 and 5.45. They also made the Fort-227, which is the Galil ACE in 5.56mm. I’ve seen one photo of a DDM4V7 present. Thus, ammunition should be present and in sufficient quantities. If that is unavailable, then the ammunition can be readily sourced from European makers, as they too make 5.56mm NATO, and Poland manufactures, uses, maintains large stocks of, and is more than willing to ship it. These weapons are frequently seen with Ukrainian SOF units, so whoever is probably going to use them are going to use them to their maximum potential. Small arms are to my knowledge still part of the US aid to Ukraine, likely because they aren’t difficult to fit in the spare space of the transport plane that isn filled with heavier weapons.
@@seedy80 Those HIMARS rockets and Javelin missiles, weapon systems so effective that they are explicitly named both Ukrainian and Russian propaganda campaigns, are totally not making an impact.
No, it does not. It potentially justifies the use of the M4, which makes better use of the type of 5.56 rounds that are there. The problem is they can't produce those rounds there, so they'd be dependent on a long foreign supply line.
@@russiannpcbot6408 I agree. Also: Why pay a premium just to buy a single auto-disabled AR-15 and maybe 5 cartridges of ammo when we can ship them thousands of medical supplies, nonperishable foods, entertainment, and most importantly, toilet paper. The U.S/Ukrainian militaries have the most up-to-date knowledge of the battlefield, and we should let their more capable logistics experts handle provision of armaments (which they can provide in bulk and buy at significantly cheaper prices).
We’ve seen clips of UA special forces using what seem to be M4s, so they probably do have some or can produce a small amount but definitely not really suitable for their overall forces imo
@@scruffy50531 M4's are different from AR-15's. M4's could work in limited situations. The ones used were provided by the US. Same with all the ammunition. Their Special Forces are US trained. It could make sense to train units in a region on M4's and only one region on the front to keep supply chain confusion down. There still will be some, but it wouldn't be as bad as if they were distributed all across the front. It still won't do anything to make up the 10:1 advantage Russia has on artillery. Nothing is going to change that. All we're doing is prolonging a war and increasing the death toll. To top it off, hardly anyone in the West even knows the cause of all this to begin with.
Ryan is such a chill and versatile guy. Really nice to watch someone like him on various subjects, he delivers just soo good. Also very nice channel that i didnt know of, subbed instantly
Ukraine actually needs heavy arms: artillery (self-propelled howitzers), rocket systems, fighter/attacker jets, drones, tanks, armorer vehicles, radio-electoric warfare devices, and a LOT of ammunition. reliable supply /logistics is a key to victory. we have a lot of small arms for common infantry. ak74s, and new vulcan-m(malyuk) bullpup rifle are doing fine. of course picatini friendly rifles like m4s and vulcan-m are preferable than old ak74s, but it's not vital as heavy guns. marksman, sniper, anti-material rifles, MGs, grenade launchers are what we need. I understand that barrels in small arms have their limits and replacement will be needed. perhaps u want to send us new M5 LMG)))
Since Ukraine won't exist in 6 months, I'd rather not. Besides that heavy stuff is needed cuz ol putiput keeps taking that stuff out within weeks of it getting in country, let alone on the battlefield. Use it, lose it. Why so that when Ukraine illegally resells it to others at a mark up anyway? Get with the grift, man!
@@fullm3taljacket why you so against NATO and the free world? Hitler had a lot of success for a few years, took many countries. Then he was killed. His family were killed. His associates were killed, some imprisoned/executed. Nazi Germany was split in 2, Berlin was split in many pieces. What do you think will happen with Putin and Russia? Do you think China, which already has its eyes on Eastern Russia, will go for Russian territory? There are Russian ports that are against Chinese land, the Russian arc comes down into China and blocks China's access to the sea. It's well known in Russia that China doesn't like this. The Russians who live on the border city don't feel comfortable. Lots of Chinese have moved across the border. What about the Japanese islands that Russia took after World War II that Japan wants back? What about Kazakhstan and the other 'stans in this area? Kazakhstan has already refused Putin's request for military support, so Putin put a 30-day blockade on Kazakhstan last month. Russia's neighbours can see its weak. Thinking that Russia will murder and steal its way to taking Ukraine, I think you underestimate NATO. If you speak with Polish, Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians they will all tell you they are absolutely maximally committed to this. They know their survival depends on this. Speak to the Czechs, they remember what happened to them on the Soviet rule and how Moscow sent tanks to kill civilians. Have you spoke to surviving relatives of people who were mass kidnapped from their own countries and sent to Siberia and other parts of Russia to die in mines? Then Russia brought in Russian people to steal the homes of those they had kidnapped and sent to their deaths. This isn't some "it doesn't really matter" conflict, this is existential for Central and Eastern Europe. Elections in Europe will be won and lost on whether candidates support Ukraine or not. I'm in Britain and I know several East Europeans who are absolutely committed to this. In fact I haven't spoken to one who has any doubts about this. They grew up under the Russian boot, under threats, under suspicion, under secret police, under disappearance. One from Czech told me on the night the Berlin wall came down her parents put her straight in the car and they drove as fast as they could to Berlin to get across. They were afraid troops from Moscow would arrive at any time and block the crossing and then the tanks were derived and then the people would be killed, again like before. What country do you live in? Have you grown up with a brutal occupation? Have you grown up with secret police and disappearances and tanks coming and murdering your parents or grandparents? Look at Poland. It's an aim in Poland to have a 300,000 strong military and it has massive public support. Why do you think this is that everybody supports this even though they know the cost will be huge? There's absolutely no way Putin can be allowed to win this. Whatever it takes.
@@omarcarrero3623 said who? Western news media and western intelligence? They are the very definition of biased. It's called propaganda. Also, as events on the ground change, so do objectives. Ever wonder why Ukraine keeps upping the ante instead of negotiating? Does anyone really think they are kicking Russia out? Why are the Ukrainians shelling a nuclear powerplant? Why they are using bio weapons on the Russians? Anything on those topics?
You keep saying it is a bad idea, yet the fact that there are already thousands of AR15’s in use there says otherwise. And considering that most AR’s have either a 1/9, or 1/7 twist rate, which will handle the most of the most common ammunition, it’s a pretty moot point you’re making. Let’s look at all the 5.56 rifles Ukraine has, either from producing themselves, buying, civilian AR’s bought privately, given, ect. Various AR15’s(Savage models being the ones most often seen), M4’s and M16’s, FN FNC’s, FN2000’s, Sig MCX’s, FN Scar L’s, locally produced versions of the Tavor, IPI Vulcan(AKA the Malyuk) chambered in 5.56), M249’s, G36’s, CZ Bren 2’s, MSMB Grot’s, ect.
I was pissed that I had to come watch this video for the results after seeing the RU-vid reel about the AR-15 battle effectiveness but honestly, what a wholesome and truly jovial video. I have no regrets, we’ll done guys 👏🏻.
I'm gonna say what I said when Ryan made his first video on the subject... And that is that I'm sure that Ukraine would be fine with getting a bunch of civilian AR-15 platforms to give out to their rear-line troops, thus freeing up a lot of combat arms for their front line units.
They’ve been using civilian-platform AR-15s in Ukraine already, with the Zbroyar Z-15 and the Savage MSR-15 both seeing use with Ukrainian SOF units. The former are made in Ukraine, and civilian models do have the third pin hole drilled, although the auto-sear was not installed. Military models I presume have that auto sear installed, and I presume both would be pressed into use in the war. From the photographic evidence available, the Savage MSR-15s do not have auto-sears installed. However, most photos of rifles made by Savage Arms are their bolt action rifles, used as sniper rifles. If civilian AR-15 rifles are sent, you bet they’re going to SOF sorts who rate more than an iron sights AK. They already have the ammo for it, the training because they already have guns like it as well as nice shit like MCX assault rifles, and you can mount an optic on it. SOF forces would probably not mind its semi-auto only since they’d rarely use full auto anyways.
For the record, Ukrainans fought with us in Afghanistan and Iraq and they let us use their airbases in those conflicts. I didn't see either of you zero in those weapons. That should have been the first thing to do before complaining about the shot grouping.
You guys totally forgot to factor in barrel length in the experiment but I think you guys basically standardized on 16in barrels? I bring this up because the US Army used a 20in barrel with a 1:14 twist with 55gr M193 for about 40 years. Hard to say if the actual guys in charge of procuring the ammo and rifles wouldn't figure out the loading, barrel length and twist rates to standardize on...but if 1 ex army guy and youtuber are gonna shoot a rifle at 300m with a scope zeroed for 25m and wonder why it's shooting high...anything could go wrong ;P
If you know how to use them and practice with them….then yes. Only difference between a military M4 Vs a civilian M4 is that the civilian rifle isn’t automatic. Anything else is just micro differences that is not going to make the slightest difference when you’re in a combat situation. And the military does not even fire their M4s on full auto because it’s inaccurate and a waste of ammo. So at the end of the day in a battlefield, a rifle is a rifle. Know it inside and out and you’re good.
The logistics angle is pretty irrefutable but if all things were equal with availability and training a civilian AR would perform more than up to the standard of any M16/M4 using military.
The entire foreign legion, belarussian volounteer force and much of the pecops guys use either bren 2s or scar l. If those guys can be using those for the last 6 months the logistics angle cant be that much of an issue, i bet countries like poland are sending 5.56 by the trainload
@@rozkaz661 that would be my guess. people on here are talking about the logistics mess Ukraine is still issueing ak47 in the 7.62x39 cal. then we go on to gpmgs hmgs in 7.62x 54 r and 7.62x51 nato. browning .50 12.7 and 14.5 or 7 they seem to be handleing it well.
Why TF would 1 in 8 shoot so high? Was it non free float resting on a bag? EDIT: It would be interesting seeing this redone with lapped recievers and the same free float handgaurd on each upper. Preferably with everything but maybe the barrel manufacturer being the exact same. Especially barrel nut and bore treatment, ie chrome or nitride. I think this would eliminate all variables that could be reasonably controlled.
One correction please, albeit it might seem minor: It is "Ukraine" not " the Ukraine" the Ukraine is "the Soviet Social Republic of Ukraine" The country being invaded by Russia right now is "Ukraine".
@@fullm3taljacket The Ukrainian language has been around far longer than the “United” States of America, as well as the USSR and Russia. Fuck facts though, right?
@@fullm3taljacket if you start the written history from 1990, yes. Ukraine was founded as a republic in 1917, about 6 years before Turkish Republic. Also predates the USSR by 1 year. And actually, declaration of independence of Ukraine reiterates that Ukraine is the continuation National Republic Of Ukraine, which was annexed by USSR after 1921. So, Ukraine has a bit longer history than 1991 independence. Ukrainian nation and culture is much older than Russian one and that's what's under Vladimir Vladimirpvichcs skin.
There is already many 5.56 military rifles such as the Czech Bren in Ukraine as part of aid packages. Although I agree with the ammo issue, civilian AR’s could be used for home guard style checkpoint units to free up some of their gear. But having said that I assume the Czech rifles etc. Might already have been used in that fashion (equipping rear units with rifles that have harder to source ammo that is)
This is 100% on the shooter. It's 2022, you guy buy lower end barrels that will still be more accurate than most shooters. I saw someone say it. Things like heavy weapons, air superiority and logistics win wars. I would also argue that any of the rifles used in this video are viable with a good team and proper training.
The US had superiority in the air, logistical superiority, and countless heavy weapon systems in the Middle East and we have lost every major war there the past 20 years. War is not that simple because if it was by those metric the US should be the undisputed rulers over half of the Middle East right now.
@@robertsteiner4696 It was more or less leadership that caused Afghanistan to eventually fall. Not saying that's the only reason. Here's something that many have forgotten. In the early days of the war, we pretty much decimated the enemy. All that was really left were cells that didn't get the memo, which turned out to be a good thing for them in the end. Overtime, they were able to rebuild more and more. After some time, they became more than a nuisance consisting of scattered cells taking back territory after their enemy left the area and started to rebuild what they've lost. It's only now that they've become powerful because of the things left behind during the botched exit of Afghanistan which includes weapons, optics, vehicles, and aircraft. Despite US troops sabotaging most of the vehicles, they're being used by the ta woah woah.
I’m 5 minutes in. As a PRS and F-Class shooter, I’m so stressed about the fact that this is ‘scientific.’ However, I am very hopeful that this is editing at its finest and all will work out in the end.
Hope you didn't finish the video. I was about to write a book on everything they were doing wrong but decided to go outside and smoke so I could cool down
That's totally rational to shoot at 300 at the same height. Depending on the difference between line of sight and line of fire(inches & the angle) and the bullet ballistics, when you zero on 50 yards/meters it would be the same at 200-300, meanwhile bullet will travel higher than line of sight between these points.
Sweet video and interesting findings! Out of curiosity, what was the zero you used and were you aiming at the orange circle each time or were you using holds?
I'm wondering about the 25 meter zero. There's a 3-in rise at 50 m a 6-in rise at 100 m a 12-in rise at 200 m. Looks like the bullets can go straight on defying gravity? Isn't there a sight that can adjust for angle of deviation of elevation? Is there a selector on the sight for this? I really don't know much about guns. I just assumed that the site would correct for distance but many times I hear people talking about the zero and it never seems to be an adjusting zero. It's quite simple maths for the distance between the barrel and the centre of the sight and then to be able to compensate for this going out to distance to keep the zero at whatever distance you want and always be zero. Literally should be able to just measure the distance from the barrel to the centre of the sight and this should then very easily give you the adjustable zero. Perhaps a simple clicker or roller on the side of the sight. Ok, so the scope should have a gauge, if that is for 25m then why didn't it work for them at 50, 100, 200, 300?
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now You can’t just measure the distance between barrel and sight and expect your zero to stay consistent. Bump your sight hard enough and your zero will be ruined. So you zero it occasionally to make sure it is as accurate as can be. Depending on the sight used, there will be indicators for different ranges, but those will only be reasonably accurate if you have zeroed it correctly.
@@deanjohnson8233 No, just no. That's an urban legend started by people who know nothing about guns or physics for that matter. That bullet starts to drop as soon as it leaves the barrel. You can intersect the bullet path and line of sight but the bullet never rises.
I took my 20" and 16" 1/9 twist guns out to the range just to make sure I wasn't crazy and the results were 1.2" average group size for the 20" barell, and the 16" w/red dot was 2.25" @100 yards both using 2021 lake city m855. Multiple outings, 5 round groups. I commented on his original video that this didn't sound right because I have had good luck with m855 out of these particular guns before. Yes, if you use m855 in a 1/12 twist it won't stabilize.. but m855 from a 1/9 is absolutely fine. I would recommend it 100%. Where this comes from.... I have no idea.
Cool video! Just a heads up: when you say The Ukraine you are making an implicit argument that Ukraine is a region rather than state with a nation (in English we use 'the' to describe regions). If you support Ukraine as a sovereign nation, you might wanna drop this 'the'
@@fullm3taljacket do you refer to the Russians in Crimea? Do you refer to 1945-1955 when Russia kidnapped up to 50% of Crimean Tatars and drag them to the minds across Russia where they died? Tatars are Ukrainian Turks. Turkey has skin in the game. Already the invading Russians in Crimea are rounding up the Ukrainian Turk Tartars. The Russians then brought in Russian people to steal the Tatar homes in Crimea. This wasn't long ago, it's living memory. And here they are doing the same again. Same old Russians doing the same old genocide. Do you really support the Russians and their genocide?
You should have a rifle for every possible caliber that you might run across. Any barrel from 1/7" to 1/9" twist will be fine for ammo up to 77gr in bullet weight except in the coldest conditions. Then the 1/9 may fall off with the 77s or tracers.
I find your findings about the 1:9 gun odd. I have a setup in 1:9 that I used for some PRS shooting (Yes, 5.56mm isn't the best I know I was doing a super budget build) and it performed very well for me with a multitude of weights at multiple ranges.
The MK12 is 5.56 18" and that thing touches well out to 700-800 fam. Never discount the 5.56. Check out 9 holes reviews SG 550 video, 1:7 shooting 55gr out of a 20 inch barrel.
@@Zel_eo Oh I know it can do it, I just don't like it as I have calibers better suited for it now (7.62x51mm). Without wind the 5.56mm can be super precise, it just moves too much for my taste.
@@TheEpictrooper Good ole 308 is a fantastic round for out to 1000 imo. I've just found 5.56, specifically in AR15 pattern rifles, to be a more versatile over all. I wish there was a way to swap a 5.56 upper onto a 308 lower to just create the best "do anything" platform but pesky physical limitations tend to get in the way.
Yes and no. The AR15 absolutely does not *need* a forward assist to operate under normal conditions. But it is a good quality of life upgrade. Example, the forward assist makes chambering a round quietly more easily. By riding the charging handle forward, and using the forward assist to press the bolt into battery. It's much quieter this way. Normal manual of arms requires you to pull the charging handle back, and letting it go, allowing the recoil spring to do all the work, which is very loud. It also allows you to more easily perform a press check. Rather than using your thumb to push forward on the bolt carrier itself through the ejection port, you press a large button on the side of the receiver.
Well, the thing is ofc, if you go with a lighter bullet or higher load, then muzzle velocity increases, meaning the rotation of the bullet will be faster, which makes sense of the fact that 1/9 does better with those types of ammo since speed/rotational frequency isnt really a factor, its just length of projectile/angular frequency that matters because of the principle of relativity. the gallilean one ofc.
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now if you’re Russia and you have the majority of control in the war on Ukraine you’re definitely not letting them produce new guns. And pretty much all high value locations in Ukraine get reported by Russian spies to the Russians
I'm gonna say it's more of the shooter cuz I've had a 1 in 9 and a 1 in 8 and both have given me no problems on accuracy or moa so it's kind of crazy to me
@@KirkFickert Yes, I've seen clips showing them assembling AR's, and one group where putting together sniper rifles on Savage 110 platforms. Does anyone make a 5.45x39 upper?
There was in history that m16 used kitbashed magazines in Vietnam by the US. With cutting up ak mags an 20 round stnag. My understanding was with 7.62x39 ak mags would be cut from below the locking lugs points or further an the 20 round mags would be cut in half an then welded to make 35/50 round mags I don't know how reliable it was I think the navy did this because 20 rounds was just bot enuff for what they where doing with m16's if I can find where I found it I'll link it.
Send Brandon Herrera and get the US government to pay him to rent out his AK collection. Every Ukranian would have three guns, one to carry, one to put in the car and a spare under the pillow.
Also a bullet isn’t going to fly out completely straight, each gun will have a different signature in that sence. The bullet starts out spinning and with an ever so slight angle of attack, talking real small angles here for a functional gun. What that does it that aerodynamically you get a small twisting force on the bullet that wants to increase the angle of attack in a single rotational axis. Since guns are designed to produce none of this but cant help fail just a tiny bit, it is pretty much down to the individual flaws in each barrel and individual guns will have a slightly different effect, but the same kind of gun might have similar but not identical biases. For the bullet in flight this means it’s basically going to ac like an off center spinning top, it will precess around the direction of motion, get slower over time, and the rotation will only minimally decrease, as the bullet gets more and more out of alignment it will produce a lifting body effect and a magnus effect, these two add up and the difference between a relatively stable bullet and a less stable one will be massive, since the effect is basically non linear because the twisting force scales with angle of attack in the supersonic regime until the angle of attack is worse than the angle of the shock cone, we will see bullets suddenly become way less accurate at a certain range, or so the theory would suggest.
M855 isn't good with 1-9 barells? What are you talking about. We went with a 1-7 twist barell so we could stabilize the 64 grain long as heck m856 tracer... And m855 worked fine with that twist rate as well. M856 is crazy long with that trace compound in it. 1-12 won't stabilize m855 but 1-9 is completely fine. I just went to the range last weekend with 500rds of m855 out of both of my 1-9 inch rifles. And they shot 2 inches no problem all day, one with iron sights. If you wanted to argue it (1-9) can't stabilize 77gr otm that's fine and debateable, but unless I'm missunderstanding you are way way off as far as m855 and 1-9 twists go. This is what happens when 2 guys who think they are smart get together... They make no sense.
From what I've seen, M855 is an inaccurate ammo and it's worse out of 1-7. I've never seen a single chart that wasn't "Red, do not use" for 1 in 7 and 62 grain ammo. I've seen people switch over to 1 in 8 and their group sizes tightened up a lot. I am very confused why the 62 did so bad, outside of it being M855. Never seen a chart where 62 wasn't yellow or green for 1-9.
@@Seth9809 I took both of mine out to the range after this video just to see and my 20" 1/9 shot a 1.2" group at 100 yards, and the 16" with red dot shot 2.25" group at 100 yards. This video just makes no sense.
seems like you can track the flight arc with the various barrel twist and bullet grains and make a comparsion based on the different arc of each set. You say the sweet spot of the 1/8-62grn is best. I concur with many others saying this as well.
@@ChucksSEADnDEADagain ,my understanding was 1/9 by design was to afford a better array of loads particularly to open the door to heavier stuff , obviously I was misinformed
@@wvdave771 No that's correct considering the original twist rate for the M16 was 1:12 with a 20 inch barrel. 1:9 is fine in barrel lengths that are that long.
I believe 1-8 is what the army marksmanship unit uses as well as a good number of service rifle competitors. The only reason 1-7 was adopted was to stabilize tracer rounds that were much longer then even 77 grain ammo
@@platypus1287 that's because most of the bullet length is INSIDE of the case, where you can't see it. Projectile length is different than overall length.
They're using NATO ammunition, it's not a perfect match for AR15's, the point of the test was to see if civilian guns would work with military ammunition as that's what they're using over there.
@@RubyDoobieScoo personally I think their spin rates are too fast. I understand that smaller bullets need faster spin raised but also you have to understand that the faster the spin rate the more exaggerated any deformities or weight dispersions will be. Slower spin like 9/1 would probably perform better
SKS's would be good enough for Ukraine to use. They are surplus and chambered in7.62 x 39 . Either Russian or Chinese. Ammo readily available anywhere. Not to mention, cheaper than AR's. Just a thought.
Sorry, I meant to say “when people “. I also spent 9 months in the desert for Desert Shield/Storm with a M16A1. If you didn’t keep it clean it stopped working.
I was really excited about this. This is really poorly done, its full of irrelevant information that just confuses the audience and the entire thing fails to prove or disprove the original concept.
Because mcbeth's opinion was wrong in the first place. Military style twist rates in the civilian world are probably the most common. Things like 1:9 are used in hilariously cheapo builds no one in their mind would run. The only real argument, from the very beginning, is that introducing another caliber to Ukraine's strained logistics train is probably not a good idea. The Ukrainians already build their own M-4 clone called the UAR-15 licensed from Colt Canada. McBeth is making the assumption that Ukrainians are morons and that the AR-15 is space magic only pure red-blooded Americans can use. The second issue is that accuracy in a rifle is a uniquely USA centric position as it always has been (maybe the UK too). Most armies in the world consider accurate to be 2-3 MOA and anything else is a bonus. I'm pretty sure Ukraine would be fine with a pointy stick that shoot bullets towards Russia. This whole video is pointless drivel.
