What would be your examples of a non-obsolete platform? Also, how are you defining obsolete? Just outdated or...?
The m4 is a modular design the AK is not. The m16 is much different than its original design the AK 47 is the same. Its a good combat rifle out to 200-300 yards. The charging handle and safety are located on the wrong side of the gun. It lacks the ability to become modern without a complete makeover. The m4 is much easier or more modular, in less than a minute you can change the upper out to several different calibers to meet a given missions requirements. The AK is a excellent choice for those who have limited experience with firearms as it goes bang every time with minimal maintenance. The m4 needs a competent operator who knows the weapon systems needs in order to maximize it's potential. Both systems are a solid choice for close quarters combat. The m4 will get you out further and with way better accuracy. In the hands of a novice the AK is by far the better choice. For those who train up to its potential the m4 is by far the better choice (given its modular design) both are still relevant
Have you not seen anything going on with the AK in the past decade? With a 12.5" barrel 5.45 is gonna cover most of your needs. Good light, maybe an IR laser if you have night vision going on, and an optic. All you really need.
You are missing the point. Can you change out the upper of a AK? Can you swap the charging handle to the left side and put the safety in a neutral position. The AK series 47/74 is exactly what it is a very good cqc weapon that truly lacks modular capabilities.I have plenty of experience with both systems in a combat environment love them both but the AK is limited by design. Ergonomics are not on its side(in fact the ergonomics are primative by comparison). For home defense/cqc they are very good but the m4 has way better ergonomics and its not even close. It is by far a better design for all around soldiering. 1 it's modular 2 excellent ergonomics 3 accurate at longer distances. For the average guy protecting your home both are on a equal playing field. But in combat you can run a m4 faster (mag drops mag changes, disengage safety).
Bulgarians made a left side thumb safety, there are people who made ambidextrous bolt carriers (which I don't care for, right side CH is fine), and as far as upper switching goes that isn't really even needed. If you need the reach beyond what a 5.45 with a 12.5" barrel can do, you'd need .308 or something similar.
Its not a modular system. I can switch out my upper in 15 seconds in a number of calibers 6.8 spc 300 blk out. The AK is not modular. Thats why we don't run it. It's a simple system that is very good at doing what it was designed for but it lacks modular capabilities. The Chinese abandoned it years ago in favor of what looks very m4 looking QBZ-191 because they needed a modular design. Stop trying to make the AK into something its not. Enjoy it for what it is.
Lol Modularity has everything to do with it. And yes it is outdated but no its not obsolete. Your arguments are weak. Tell me why the AK is so great in your eyes. Do you see more militarys adopting it in the future? Its simple and cheap to build design that 3rd world countries can afford. It does not match modern rifles in any way to include the m4.
Because it does what it needs to and I can still hit targets out to 500m with 5.45, maybe 600 if I found a range that goes that far. If I need a .30 CAL, I'm using .308.
Some of your guys from Russia are not very well trained
They're not just random infantry, so I'd disagree. Its quite possible for people to like something other than the M4.
I highly doubt that.
Different people live different lives. Some folks in the spetsnaz like the AR design, and some don't. Its not like they don't have access to it either, considering vepr does make one.
Any modern operator worth a crap will want a modern modular design (dont have to be the m4). This conversation is worthless because you have no 1st hand experience.
Sounds like cope.
