Is the AK-47 louder than the M4 carbine?

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah but what about the unaided human ear? I highly doubt someone will be able to tell the difference between an M16 an AK if they don't not see the gun that is firing, they will just hear a loud crack or pop off in the distance. Especially if its just a single shot.

If its full auto than they can tell by the rate of fire. AK-47 RoF=600 RPM and M4 RoF=750 RPM.

But I have to agree with Gremlin29, both the AK-47 and M16/M4 are equally loud. But they have a distinctive sound, as all weapons do, even in the same caliber. The AK-47 has a slightly lower pitched sound while the M16/M4 has a higher pitched sound to it and they have different rates of fire. But their both pretty loud.

Now that I think on it I have never fired ether but I do go hunting and I have fired rifles in 30-06, 7mm Rem. and .300WM. I live in Oregon and most hunters there use bolt-action rifles. But I bring this up because one time I went hunting and I heard a loud gunshot. It sounded like it was almost as loud as a .308 but with a higher pitched and sharper sound to it. Plus whoever shot it fired one round and than another round right after it so they fired it too fast for it to be a normal hunting rifle. It could have been an AR-15 or AK but it was off in the distance so I don't know, I just know it startled me because I was not expecting it.

people familiar with both weapons will be able to tell the difference. out on the range we could tell every time what weapons were under test. esp when under sustained fire.

they are different. audibly so.

this has got nothing to do with how loud a weapon is. the acoustic characteristics are different. it's got nothing to do with a db thresh-hold.

a guns discharge characteristics are akin to wavelength identifiers on communications systems.

However, to reinforce why we use sensors rather than people. It's because they are not good accurate and or persistent reference gatherers and are invariably inconsistent. People generally can't be trusted to not have their conclusions polluted by various uncontrollable factors, eg prejudice, biological hearing limits, biological deficiencies in the individual. its why people often recoil when they hear their voices played back to them as it sounds nothing like they expected. I'm talking about fine discrimination issues, not general listening issues to someone familiar with a weapons set

acoustic sensors and dogs always know the difference. humans, regularly, demonstrably less so. experienced individuals can and will identify different weapons because they've also trained by repetition etc....

I'm not even sure why this is being debated. We've been able to identify individual weapons electronically for more than 20 years. The italians were doing it 60 years ago with far less sophisticated capability.

 

[Gremlin29]

On a serious note: Where did you find all the reinforcing parts of your argument

Not, from the internet.

There is no degrading of the 5.56mm in there, as they continue to use supersonic rounds. Did you even read the articles or glanced over them a bit too fast?

Yes I did, and I understood what I read.

You are making a blanket statement that is not correct. Under certain conditions this is true. I recommend you look into how close to tolerance and in alignment with the barrel sound suppressor baffles need to be, and then look into bullet deformation caused by barrel heat. "When" those temperatures are reached, (and they will be in a fire fight) the predictable and resultant bullet wobble as it leaves the barrel will do several things, degradation of the baffle via bullet contact OR, you end up shooting your suppressor off.

And YES quick mount suppressors are practical (skip the cost implications for this discussion) but they change point of impact (as noted in the articles you linked) which require re-zeroing sights, not practical in the field during ops.

Lastly none of the articles even discuss the affect on fire and maneuver, you know when you actually want the enemy to know your shooting at them and from where. Suppressors are useful there is no denying that, I just don't believe they should be equipped on every weapon, all the time as there are more drawbacks than not.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Not, from the internet.



Yes I did, and I understood what I read.

You are making a blanket statement that is not correct. Under certain conditions this is true. I recommend you look into how close to tolerance and in alignment with the barrel sound suppressor baffles need to be, and then look into bullet deformation caused by barrel heat. "When" those temperatures are reached, (and they will be in a fire fight) the predictable and resultant bullet wobble as it leaves the barrel will do several things, degradation of the baffle via bullet contact OR, you end up shooting your suppressor off.

And YES quick mount suppressors are practical (skip the cost implications for this discussion) but they change point of impact (as noted in the articles you linked) which require re-zeroing sights, not practical in the field during ops.

Lastly none of the articles even discuss the affect on fire and maneuver, you know when you actually want the enemy to know your shooting at them and from where. Suppressors are useful there is no denying that, I just don't believe they should be equipped on every weapon, all the time as there are more drawbacks than not.

Suppressors are for wussies....just kidding.

No but seriously just wear ear plugs and you will be fine....I think....

 

[Firn]

No but seriously just wear ear plugs and you will be fine....I think....

Well, you think that. Experienced officers who handled them in Afghanistan and Iraq think otherwise

 

[Firn]

You are making a blanket statement that is not correct. Under certain conditions this is true. I recommend you look into how close to tolerance and in alignment with the barrel sound suppressor baffles need to be, and then look into bullet deformation caused by barrel heat. "When" those temperatures are reached, (and they will be in a fire fight) the predictable and resultant bullet wobble as it leaves the barrel will do several things, degradation of the baffle via bullet contact OR, you end up shooting your suppressor off.

Can you point to a source for that?

In Finnish Defense Forces' tests 300 rounds of 7.62 x 39 mm M43 caliber ball ammunition were fired quick full-auto through the Reflex Suppressor. No significant damage for suppressor, but the rifle needed a new barrel! Similar torture-tests with similar results were carried out using e.g. the 7.92 mm caliber MG34 as a test-bed. .

Modern sound suppressors seem to quite impressive and robust devices.

And YES quick mount suppressors are practical (skip the cost implications for this discussion) but they change point of impact (as noted in the articles you linked) which require re-zeroing sights, not practical in the field during ops.

Lastly none of the articles even discuss the affect on fire and maneuver, you know when you actually want the enemy to know your shooting at them and from where. Suppressors are useful there is no denying that, I just don't believe they should be equipped on every weapon, all the time as there are more drawbacks than not.

A compact sound suppressor keeps the noise around you down, but your enemy should hear from a short to medium distance that you muzzlesound. When you deliver large volumes of fire in his general direction he should hear the bullets flying over his head - this should get his attention.

All in all there are few situations where I think that a rifle with an attached robust bsound suppressor (especially on a bullpup) is not better than one without one. Thus I would zero the weapon in with it attached.

To sum it up a robust and compact sound suppressor on a nice rifle (I prefer a bullpup) with a relative low unsuppressed ROF (the sound suppressor increases that) is in most situation the better choice. So I believe they should be given to every soldier and fitted every time unless the specific situation dictates otherwise.

If you want you can point me to some sources which convincingly contradict the sources and arguments I mentioned. But you are of course free to just disagree

 

[mman]

AK-47 v M-16

The AK sounds louder than the M-16 and deeper- at least the civilian versions of both. At least to my ear. Will have to get back to you about a civilianized M-4 (my son has one).

 

[Gremlin29]

If you want you can point me to some sources which convincingly contradict the sources and arguments I mentioned. But you are of course free to just disagree

I am military (CW3 Army) and am not going to scour the web to source my position. Just ask yourself this: If the US SF community, SAS etc. arm themselves with pretty much whatever they think they need, wouldn't all of their weapons be suppressed, all the time?

 

[Firn]

I am military (CW3 Army) and am not going to scour the web to source my position. Just ask yourself this: If the US SF community, SAS etc. arm themselves with pretty much whatever they think they need, wouldn't all of their weapons be suppressed, all the time?

As I wrote before:

To sum it up a robust and compact sound suppressor on a nice rifle (I prefer a bullpup) with a relative low unsuppressed ROF (the sound suppressor increases that) is in most situation the better choice. So I believe they should be given to every soldier and fitted every time unless the specific situation dictates otherwise.

Anyway we have already seen a great trend towards suppressors and they are winning greater and greater favor. We will see how things look like in 5-10 years.

Seemingly we disagree mostly about the extent of their usefullness....

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The AK sounds louder than the M-16 and deeper- at least the civilian versions of both. At least to my ear. Will have to get back to you about a civilianized M-4 (my son has one).

I highly doubt the AK-47 is any louder than the M16. They have almost the same gunpowder volumes and the M16 has a flash hider on the end of the barrel which makes more noise by like 6 dB.

I would say they make a different type of noise as the AK-47 has a lower pitch more throaty type of sound well the M16/M4 has a higher pitched sharper sound to it. But their both equally loud and the AK-47 is no louder than the M16/M4.

The 5.56 NATO might be louder than the .223 because of the higher gas pressures.

 

[Gremlin29]

Anyway we have already seen a great trend towards suppressors and they are winning greater and greater favor. We will see how things look like in 5-10 years.

Seemingly we disagree mostly about the extent of their usefullness....

Agreed and agreed. I do think that SF community is a good indicator to where this is going to trend in the near future. My belief is that suppressors "may" be used much in the way the designated marksman are in the Army, at least.

By the way I went to a get together this past weekend and we fired alot of 5.56 and 7.62x39. No suppressor action but I used Sonic Defenders which are great for hearing protection without losing the ability to verbally communicate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Admin:

Just in case it gets out hand, or just in case I'm being oversensitive, can everyone pause a little before it's perceived that we're heading towards a pi$$ing contest.

agree to disagree.

much appreciated.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Agreed and agreed. I do think that SF community is a good indicator to where this is going to trend in the near future. My belief is that suppressors "may" be used much in the way the designated marksman are in the Army, at least.

By the way I went to a get together this past weekend and we fired alot of 5.56 and 7.62x39. No suppressor action but I used Sonic Defenders which are great for hearing protection without losing the ability to verbally communicate.

Even with ear plugs in don't your ears still ring a little bit after firing an AR-15 or AK-47 type weapon? Seams to me like ear plugs only help a little bit, but your talking about sonic defenders which I honestly have no idea what that is.

 

[DemonSlayer]

I just want to think everyone for replying to my question but I'm still getting mixed signals.

Gremlin29 says he has fired both various AK and AR type weapons in 7.62X39 and 5.56X45 and he says they are both equally loud.

While mman says the AK-47 is louder to his ears.

So if I may ask which one is it? Are they both the same or is one louder?

Again thank you for your time.

 

[Gremlin29]

We're cool GF, I believe Firn and I have agreed to disagree like gentlemen.

F15, regular foam or rubber earplugs worn properly is sufficient hearing protection and no, you don't get any ringing at all. Sonic Defenders are goofy, inexpensive (I think I paid $12 pair) earplugs that have a baffle that closes when you shoot blocking out the sound, but open back up so you can hear. There are electronic muffs that do the same, plus you can turn the gain up and actually hear (other than loud sounds like gunfire) better than normal. The cheaper versions sell for $35 or so.

DemonSlayer, I don't know what more to tell you. There's a difference that equipment can detect but to the human ear they are similarly loud as far as I'm concerened. Like I said, I blasted off a bunch of 5.56 (Lake City) through an AR this past weekend and a bunch of 7.62x39 (Russian surplus) through an AK and they seemed equally loud. I even asked my range partners what they thought and they were of the same opinion. By contrast I also fired 7.62x51 through my CETME, that definately has alot more bark.

 

[gf0012-aust]

We're cool GF, I believe Firn and I have agreed to disagree like gentlemen.

I noticed that everyone is being relatively civilised - which is the main thing.

 

[DemonSlayer]

DemonSlayer, I don't know what more to tell you. There's a difference that equipment can detect but to the human ear they are similarly loud as far as I'm concerened. Like I said, I blasted off a bunch of 5.56 (Lake City) through an AR this past weekend and a bunch of 7.62x39 (Russian surplus) through an AK and they seemed equally loud. I even asked my range partners what they thought and they were of the same opinion. By contrast I also fired 7.62x51 through my CETME, that definately has alot more bark.

OK thank you that's all I needed to hear. By the way whats the recoil like with the AK? I heard they kick a lot more than a AR-15.

 

[Gremlin29]

In my opinion... the first thing I would say is that bolt action rifles and shotguns kick, automatics have recoil.

With AK's the felt recoil is a bit more than the AR, and depending on what device is screwed on to the end of the barrel it goes from jumps up a bit to not much. The AK has a spring loaded plunger in the sight block and a threaded crown so you can easily change the muzzle device. The round nut type does nothing for the rifle, the slant cut helps with barrel rise and there are a host of ported/vented brakes/flash hiders that mitigate barrel rise with varying degrees of success. The AR is more accurate and capable of a faster aimed fire.

The AR has less recoil and barrel rise, it's somewhere between the AK and a 22 long rifle. But still you can shoot both weapons all day without discomfort. By contrast, with bolt action rifles your shoulder will wear out depending on caliber and number of rounds fired.

 

[Firn]

We're cool GF, I believe Firn and I have agreed to disagree like gentlemen.

I agree that we agreed to disagree like gentlemen

Anyway good electronic ear defenders are excellent when you both need sensitive hearing and a protection against loud noice. There are now also quite some models with integrated in- and out- communication, some of which see service in the current conflicts.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I just went shooting last weekend with family for fun and fired off some rounds. No 5.56 rounds but I did fire off some .40 S&W, 12 gauge and a 30-06.

But the thing is there was not enough ear plugs for everyone so when I got to shoot I did not have ear protection. Kind of a stupid thing to do because even 3 days after shooting my ears still ring and they ache every now and then.

So I was wondering does that ringing noise in my ears ever go away or is it permanent damage?

 

[Firn]

.

So I was wondering does that ringing noise in my ears ever go away or is it permanent damage?

Could be, could be not. In any case our ears are very sensitive organs. I would go straight to a specialist.

Never shoot without earplugs unless in danger.