As is the 7.62. the 74, 107 etc. fire the same "high class varmint" sized ammo that most USA and NATO ordinance rely upon. The soviet version was even 5.45 compared to NATO 5.56.
US media does not ignore them at all....it simply calls them all AK-47s. Why bother with accuracy when you can use an iconic label?Originally Posted by Husar
There's much more inherent "evil" in saying "AK-47 ASSAULT rifle" on your news broadcast. Some of the more educated among them call them "Kalishnikovs," even though he hasn't been the lead designer for a goodly time. So many Americans, "informed" by the vaseline-smiled ignoramati.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
So... You are doing it wrong then.
No wonder Sweden trampled you in each and every war.
Only positive with the 7.62 is the penetration in, say, concrete.
If you talk about effect on the human body, 5,56 wins. It also has less recoil and weights less (VERY important if you are an actual soldier).
There is a reason why all modern armies switched to 5.56 from 7.62
As Seamus explained above, the 7.62 was introduced all across Nato back in the day, and the last batch of AG3's are from the very early 70's. The battle rifle has a longer range than the assault rifle, while the assault rifle is far less bulky to drag through doors and alleys and such.
Weight and recoil concerns are for girly swedes, not something proper vikings care about.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Bookmarks