• olgas_husband
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    idk, the pamphlet said that us soldiers would often carry aks from vietnamese soldiers they killed because m16 sucked ass, so probably wrote in the 60’s.

    as of today idk, ak did change a lot to and i don’t see much “scientific” testing, most guntubers are american so they stand for their rifle, and since russia turned capitalist the profit motive is in the equation too.

    so yeah, no ideia how is the best considering all factors

    • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      DOD cheaped out on ammo or some shit, the m16 could have done better for the imperialists at the time without changing the gun, but they fucked up.

      today the ar-15 derivatives are probably better for most purposes because they take optics better and polymer is good and light, which you want because you’re carrying your gun way more often than you’re shooting it. If you’re a nation-state fielding an army there might be supply chain considerations that would put you on AK derivatives instead.

      for civilians you probably don’t need a gun, and if you do need a gun you either need ten friends with guns too and matching your friends for spare parts and sharing ammo matters more than the platform, or you’re hunting and you aren’t terribly likely to want an ar-15 or ak at all.

      bombs are probably better than guns but leftist violence would just be used as an excuse to crack down on everything so, you know, probably don’t do any of that.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Newer versions of AK are still good. I seen video of AK104 test where it shoot something like 1000 bullets non stop, get so hot that the polymer front grip literally burned and it still worked.