American v.s Russian Small Arms. Which is better?

[500]

The US hardly uses snipers. Like 1 in 10,000. Russia has snipers in every squad.

Russia uses marskmen not snipers. Ditto US. Snipers are rare birds in every army.

 

[Arya Desa]

Such an easy answer:

INSAS



On a more serious note, while Russian weapons are more reliable they are less accurate.

 

[Mahmoud_EGY]

This question includes Assault Rifles, sub machine guns, pistols, lmg's etc.

there are others than make weapons sometimes better
my favorite
pistol

SMG

assault rifle

LMG

 

[ptldM3]

Yeah...Go have your right leg shot with an AK then your left leg shot with an AR. Come back and tell us which is worse.

I have seen (not in person) the results of the 7.62 hitting the arms/ lower legs and on several occasions there was little more then just skin (literally) holding the limbs. As for your argument, the AK comes in 7.62, 5.45 and 5.56, the 7.62 is used to breach through body armor, light vehicles and even concrete walls. The 5.45 is similar to the 5.56 in which it is designed to be a light, high velocity round that is optimized to do as much damage to flesh as possible relative to the size of the round, but unlike the 5.56 which is designed to fragment the 5.45 is designed to yaw violently and actually tumble upon impact.

 

[gambit]

I have seen (not in person) the results of the 7.62 hitting the arms/ lower legs and on several occasions there was little more then just skin (literally) holding the limbs. As for your argument, the AK comes in 7.62, 5.45 and 5.56, the 7.62 is used to breach through body armor, light vehicles and even concrete walls. The 5.45 is similar to the 5.56 in which it is designed to be a light, high velocity round that is optimized to do as much damage to flesh as possible relative to the size of the round, but unlike the 5.56 which is designed to fragment the 5.45 is designed to yaw violently and actually tumble upon impact.

What difference does it make to the victim if his leg was hit by a 7.62 and hanging on by the skin versus the victim who was hit by a 5.56 and have only a broken leg ? Nothing.

The point Eugene Stoner made back then was that the goal is to disable the combatant from doing his part in the battle. A wounded combatant who contributes at %50 or less capacity and ability -- might as well be dead. As a SIGINT specialist, if I have to evade my pursuers, I would rather have quantity over quality, meaning I would rather have more 5.56 rounds even if all I can do is disable instead of killing them, and one 5.56 round will be enough. On the other hand, if I ever got into a gunfight with near hand-to-hand combat distance, then I would rather have the .45 over the 9 mm. That close, I want stopping power.

 

[ptldM3]

What difference does it make to the victim if his leg was hit by a 7.62 and hanging on by the skin versus the victim who was hit by a 5.56 and have only a broken leg ? Nothing.

None, all rounds will kill or slow down an attacker but some rounds are better suited for special or different purposes then others. There is nothing wrong with the 5.56 round as someone has previously suggested.

The point Eugene Stoner made back then was that the goal is to disable the combatant from doing his part in the battle. A wounded combatant who contributes at %50 or less capacity and ability -- might as well be dead. As a SIGINT specialist, if I have to evade my pursuers, I would rather have quantity over quality, meaning I would rather have more 5.56 rounds even if all I can do is disable instead of killing them, and one 5.56 round will be enough. On the other hand, if I ever got into a gunfight with near hand-to-hand combat distance, then I would rather have the .45 over the 9 mm. That close, I want stopping power.

There is very little difference in ballistics between the .45 and 9mm, yes, a full metal jacket .45 will have a larger wound cavity but realistically speaking if a 9mm hits someone without killing or stopping them then neither will a .45 if both round hit the exact area. In terms of hollow points there has been extensive ballistics tests comparing the 9mm and .45 and some 9mm ammo has been found to have greater expansion and create a larger wound cavity.

Everyone has their preference but from years of research and shooting both .45 and 9mm i have come to the conclusion that a 9mm is roughly equal to a .45 and sometimes can outperform the .45 depending on barrel length, grain and bullet types compared, so why would i want a bigger .45 that allows me to cary less ammunition? I have never heard of anyone in a gunfight that wished they had less ammunition. When your life is in danger, your hear is pounding, your target is moving and you are moving i would prefer to have 15-19 rounds of 9mm as opposed to 7-10 rounds of .45 because chances are a lot of the rounds fired will be misses. The 9mm is also softer shooting so the shooter is back on target quicker not to mention the 9mm is cheaper and the most common round in the world.

Contrary to all of the hype the .45 fanboys make there is no such thing as "knock down power" and a .45 round will not obliterate its target to the next dimension. It's all about shot placement and capacity, if you choose the .45 that is fine but when the zombies come you will wish that you were not so irresponsible with your choice of ammunition, and if you chose the unreliable 1911 platform may god help you.

 

[MilSpec]

The argument seems redundant, there is no such thing is which small arms are better just based on origin, both nations have made some very impressive systems and both nations have produced some lemons.

there is a slight undertone of ak vs ar in the reasoning but a general look at a larger picture will lead to the fact that russian systems have been robust , simple and reliable and have optimal engineering , US systems are precise, highe quality and and hae state of the art engineering involved.

 

[gambit]

None, all rounds will kill or slow down an attacker but some rounds are better suited for special or different purposes then others. There is nothing wrong with the 5.56 round as someone has previously suggested.

True...But from my experience, which I drew heavily from my friends in the USAF SpecOps community, if I can chose a good 'all purpose' caliber, I will pick the current 5.56 mm.

When your life is in danger, your hear is pounding, your target is moving and you are moving i would prefer to have 15-19 rounds of 9mm as opposed to 7-10 rounds of .45 because chances are a lot of the rounds fired will be misses.

You train with what you have. For a complete novice, and I mean someone unaccustomed to being around firearms, it would not matter one whit how many rounds he/she have at that stressful time. It will be the classic 'spray and pray' technique.

Contrary to all of the hype the .45 fanboys make there is no such thing as "knock down power" and a .45 round will not obliterate its target to the next dimension. It's all about shot placement and capacity,...

You are correct -- that it is about shot placement. But it is more about shot placement and less about capacity. If the shot placement is the same, say the heart, for example, then it does not matter if it is a .45 or 9 mm or even a .22 short. But this is the real world and not the movies. Experienced shooters know it is not about the 'knock down power' of the .45 but about the extent of damage the caliber can do to less-than-desirable locations on the body, and when we are talking about near hand-to-hand combat distances, I want every possible edge I can get my hands on. I know a cop who collapsed a charging opponent with a single .45 shot to a major structure on the body -- the hip bone. Momentum still carried the man forward but the round's mass did enough damage to that major structure that he failed to reach his target because his body gave way.

Fanboy arguments can be dismissed if the fanboys have never faced a 'life or death' situation and all they have are shot up wooden posts to show for their arguments. But for a police officer or a soldier who have been in that 'life or death' situation, possibly more than once and at near hand-to-hand combat distance, a single experience with a particular weapon or caliber that saved his life will earn his loyalty, even if it may be irrational from an academic perspective.

 

[Superboy]

5.45 by 39 poison bullets are nastier than 5.56 by 45. Tumbles more and hurts more. Plus, 7N6M introduced in 1987 has hardened steel penetrator which correct me if I'm wrong is far earlier than the equivalent NATO Green Tip. 7.62 by 39 designed for the SKS / AK-47 has been replaced by 5.45 by 39 since 1974. In Ukraine they typically use 5.45 by 39, like over 95% of assault rifle ammo used in Ukraine war are 5.45 by 39. Only in Syria war do they use 7.62 by 39 since they use AK-47 rather than AK-74.

If Ukraine receives M16 / M4 in the coming weeks then next year we can see AK-74 and Dragunov combo used by rebels square off against M16 / M4 used by Ukraine.

Bullets are as essential as guns. These days when body armor are prevalent, AP bullets are needed to shoot through armor. Russia has 7N24 bullets that have tungsten carbide cores which correct me if I'm wrong, the US does not have bullets that have tungsten carbide cores.

Contemporary 7N22 which has hardened steel core on the left and 7N24 which has tungsten carbide core on the right.