by Silver 2 » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:55 pm
No one has made armor that any standard issue weapon can take out in over 60 years. At the beginning of WWII just about all the tanks had thin side armor that a .50 cal (or mm equivilent) could penertrate and the Russians made 'tank killing' rifles, not sure about the Germans or US.
So yes, AK's are worthless against armor.
A note, much of what we see and call AK47's are not, they are AK-74's. The AK-47's fired a 7.62 mm round and the 74's fire a 5.45 mm round. The 5.45 is pretty much the same size as the M-16 round. As for cost, here in the US there may be a penny's worth of difference in cost per round, the older ak-47 rounds when bought in bulk can be up to several cents cheaper than the .223 or 5.45. My guess is that on the world market 7.62 and 5.45's are a lot cheaper than .223 rounds.
Accuracy, AK's were designed to be made cheaply and fast and there are a lot of knock-offs out there, this does nothing for accuracy. I know of several people who have made minor alterations on their AK's and say that the accuracy with them is as good as the M-16. Neither of these weapons match the bolt action Springfield or, even older, the 30-40 Krag.
I grew up around weapons, they don't bother me one way or the other. To quote DMX from a movie my son made me see "Guns don't kill people; stupid motherfuckers with guns kill people".
I will end with this, someone who owns a handgun for home defense is a stupid motherfucker. Get a nice short .410 and load it with #4 shot.
I like playing with fire.