Anyone own an AK47?

**number twelve** · 10-03-2007, 12:09 PM

i have the original nintendo handgun for Duck Hunt

RA · 10-03-2007, 12:16 PM

I use a 35 or 270. The 270 isnt mine but I want one. I can put a several shots through the same hole with that gun.

Originally Posted by ronan the barbarian

i was gonna say,deer hunting with an ak?????/isnt that a little unsporting.lol

**bpm1** · 10-03-2007, 12:30 PM

ive got an AK as well as several other handguns and r***es.ive got pistols stashed all over my house, if someone busts in they r gonna be sorely disappointed (my wife is a damn good shot and isnt afraid to use them)

**AandF6969** · 10-03-2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by ronan the barbarian

i was gonna say,deer hunting with an ak?????/isnt that a little unsporting.lol

It would actually be more challenging to kill a deer with an AK47 than a traditional "non scary looking" hunting r***e... the AK's available in the US are not fully automatic... meaning that they are functionally just like a hunting r***e. People get the wrong impression about them.

**bpm1** · 10-03-2007, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by AandF6969

It would actually be more challenging to kill a deer with an AK47 than a traditional "non scary looking" hunting r***e... the AK's available in the US are not fully automatic... meaning that they are functionally just like a hunting r***e. People get the wrong impression about them.

this is true that most are semi-automatic(mine is as well) but u can get the fully automatic ones with a permit which is easy to get as long as you dont have a record

**bpm1** · 10-03-2007, 03:19 PM

id have to say that it would be alot harder to kill a deer with my AK than my hunting r***e

**AandF6969** · 10-03-2007, 03:19 PM

I know they are, I was meaning that 99% of the ones in the US are semi-automatic.

The ones that are fully automatic are not feasible or affordable for many people.

I just find it humorous that people think AK47 and think "OMFG MACHINE GUN!!! TERRORISTS!!!!" When in all actuality, it has no more capability than a hunting r***e... it just looks scary

Originally Posted by ronan the barbarian

ill stay in england with our ridiculous laws that stop us getting killed just for going to school/work or getting petrol.lol

You mean... your ridiculous laws that criminals choose not to obey, but law abiding citizens do and are left defenseless? Oh, those. Ok. Pretty sure people still get killed just for going to school/work and getting petrol.

**xero** · 10-03-2007, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by AandF6969

You mean... your ridiculous laws that criminals choose not to obey, but law abiding citizens do and are left defenseless? Oh, those. Ok. Pretty sure people still get killed just for going to school/work and getting petrol.

Or the ridiculous laws in the US where you are not allowed to buy and use AAS, but its fine to go out and buy a machine designed to kill humans.

Anyhow, here in africa you can pick up an AK for around $6.50, courtesy of the old USSR and cuba that felt it necessary to flood the continent with these killing machines.

AK's are a major problem here. Hate them.

**Animal Cracker** · 10-03-2007, 03:58 PM

iI have several- polish, romanians, iraqi, east-german, bulgarian and a russian. EG and Russian are the best. Slavs are horrible..but they will do the job.

**youknowit45** · 10-03-2007, 04:02 PM

m16A4 is accurate easily 500m if you know how to use open sights decent, i'd have disagree completely that it outbeats th AK47 close ranger, 7.62 rounds rip through peoples arms, the M16A4 is merely a pelet gun to the Ak, if you want to be accurate change it to an AKog just and M16a4 with a scope easily 800m shots with complete accuracy if your not a quivering bitch imo

**Atomini** · 10-03-2007, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by youknowit45

m16A4 is accurate easily 500m if you know how to use open sights decent, i'd have disagree completely that it outbeats th AK47 close ranger, 7.62 rounds rip through peoples arms, the M16A4 is merely a pelet gun to the Ak, if you want to be accurate change it to an AKog just and M16a4 with a scope easily 800m shots with complete accuracy if your not a quivering bitch imo

Then how come the Pig Board and Goat Board tests of the 1950s and 1960s showed differently? How come actual accounts of what the 5.56x45mm can do proves different?

Yes, a 7.62x51mm (or x39mm) round will rip straight through someone's arm at close range... and that's exactly why it's less damaging at shorter ranges than the 5.56x45mm round. It rips right through because it's such a powerful and stable round. The 5.56x45mm round is less powerful and less stable, and that is why when it hits a target at a closer range, it doesn't just blast right through... the round splinters inside the wound and therefore causes cavities in the human body to explode. The expanding mass of the bullet travelling through the body causes gigantic rips and tears. Combine that with the 5.56x45mm's tumbling effect, and you have something that creates FAR greater devastating wounds and damage at close ranges than the 7.62 series of cartidges. The 7.62 rounds have a flat trajectory. The 5.56x45mm round doesn't.

The same holds true for any smaller round. At close ranges, they are all more devastating than the more powerful larger rounds. During the 1920s, the US military was on the search for a new r***e (which as we all know became the M1 Garand), but at that time the Garand's contender was the Pedersen .276 r***e. The .276 round was a smaller and less powerful round than the .30 caliber (7.62x63mm), which was the standard at the time. The Pig Board tests were conducted and the conclusion was:

Smaller rounds cause greater devastating wounds and damage at closer range, but are less effective at longer range. Larger more powerful cartidges cause greater devastating wounds and damage at longer range, but are less effective at closer ranges.

The Pig Board tests were then conducted again during the early 1960s to contend the AR15 (now known as the M16 series of r***es) and the M14. The conclusion was the same. They then conducted Goat Board tests, and the conclusion was the same.

The .276 was not adopted at the time because the standard engagement ranges were very far at the time (as was seen from World War 1). We now use the smaller 5.56x45mm round because we do not engage targets at extreme ranges over vast open fields any longer. Wars are now fought 85% of the time in urban environments where targets are engaged in ranges of approximately 300 meters or less.

Yes, one can easily take down a target at ranges in excess of 500 meters with an M16A2 (or an M16A3 as was the case with me in the Canadian Forces). But are you ever going to engage targets that far in war these days? Chances are, you won't.

That's the reality. And only in videogame terms is the 5.56x45 round weaker than the 7.62x51 (or x39). In reality, there is much more to it than just "what's stronger or weaker?". That kind of reasoning is only in videogames.

**3bd** · 10-03-2007, 06:17 PM

^my boy's wicked smart. don't fvck with him.

**Atomini** · 10-03-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by 3**

^my boy's wicked smart. don't fvck with him.

Frank Castle would know what i'm talking about

Here's some more info for those of you who are interested:

7.62x51mm bullet wound profile:

5.56x45mm bullet wound profile:

Look at how nasty that 5.56 wound is. Seriously, I would rather get blasted by a 7.62 round and have a clean through-and-through wound than have that nasty-ass 5.56 expand my inners and shred them up into liquid shit. Well... i'd rather not get blasted at all, but you get my point!

And for those of you who might be wondering "wtf is a Pig Board test?", well... it's a test that the US military originally did in the 1920s in order to test wound ballistics at different ranges for different rounds. What they did was they took a bunch of pigs, anesthetized them, strapped them up to some wooden boards downrange and blasted the fvck out of them. Afterwards they'd do autopsies to see the wounds each r***e and their rounds caused. In the early 1960s when the US military was testing the M16, they used the pigs, but then some dude went "hey, the composition of a pig's body is much different than a human's" because a pig has much more subcutaneous fat than a human. So they went and took the closest thing to the human body: goats. They did the same thing with them and that's why you have Goat Board tests.

**AandF6969** · 10-03-2007, 06:54 PM

lol I love how the letters I FL are blocked from the word ri.fle

**Kennedy** · 10-03-2007, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by AandF6969

I'm looking to pick one up, around $400 but I want it to be reliable and decently accurate... a couple hundred yards would be OK. Anybody own one, and did you build it or buy it complete?

An AK47 at a couple hundred yards out? I hope you have a scope for whatever your planning to hit.

For reference police snipers shoot at a maximum of 150 Yards with a .308 caliber bullet and Remington 700 (base) and Leupold ($$$$) scope.....and marine scout snipers shoot at 100- 1500 yards a more accurate r***e as well.