Is the AK-47 louder than the M4 carbine? [Archive]

F-15 Eagle

May 4th, 2009, 08:29 PM

influences on acoustic impact of a weapon:

type of propellant
volume of propellant (hence short round will be acoustically quieter than an equiv calibre long round)
design of crown
length of barrel
weight of barrel
barrel properties
design of muzzle brake and/or flash suppressor
recoil mitigation design issues (exhaust management in the mechanism, breech design etc...)
furniture design (it does even in very small terms act as a transducer)

This my recollection anyway from when I worked on ballistics program on recoil mitigation.

"gunpowder" or "blackpowder" is basically restricted to antique weapons. either is not used in modern weapon systems

From what I have read the AK-47 is slightly louder than the M4 but not by much. The M16 does around 155-157 dB and the AK-47 does 159 dB I think. The M249 SAW does 160 dB.

The M16 has a higher pitched noise like a sharp loud crack while the AK-47 is a lower frequency like a boom. You can tell the difference cause they have a different type of noise.

I don't know if someone can tell a 2-5 dB difference with just their own ears but I presume so cause the M16 and AK have their own type of noise.

But I only say this because what I have read from other people on the internet. I have never seen someone shoot a M4 or AK-47 in person nor I have ever fired one in real life so I could be wrong. Maybe someone of these forums know more about this than I do?

gf0012-aust

May 4th, 2009, 11:00 PM

I don't know if someone can tell a 2-5 dB difference with just their own ears but I presume so cause the M16 and AK have their own type of noise.

It's not people being able to detect them that is the issue. It's sensor systems. You can however pick up the differences in weapons types if you are familiar. acoustically they are different.

We developed (and we aren't the only ones) sniper detection systems which can be calibrated to specific weapons types. We ran any number of tests where the sensors would detect and track red systems over blue systems. the issue of course is that just because someone has a red or blue weapons system doesn't mean that they are a red or blue shooter.

thats why blue force tracking is a critical supplementary system tool.

right gun, wrong place, no BFT = dead person against the right SDS

F-15 Eagle

May 4th, 2009, 11:13 PM

It's not people being able to detect them that is the issue. It's sensor systems. You can however pick up the differences in weapons types if you are familiar. acoustically they are different.

We developed (and we aren't the only ones) sniper detection systems which can be calibrated to specific weapons types. We ran any number of tests where the sensors would detect and track red systems over blue systems. the issue of course is that just because someone has a red or blue weapons system doesn't mean that they are a red or blue shooter.

thats why blue force tracking is a critical supplementary system tool.

right gun, wrong place, no BFT = dead person against the right SDS

You may have answered this before so if you have I'm sorry but have you ever fired an M16/M4 or any weapon in 5.56 NATO or an AK-47 or both? If so would you say there is any noise difference between the two?

I would love to fire these weapons but I can just go out and buy them because I don't have the money unfortunately.:(

OPSSG

May 5th, 2009, 12:34 AM

You may have answered this before so if you have I'm sorry but have you ever fired an M16/M4 or any weapon in 5.56 NATO or an AK-47 or both? If so would you say there is any noise difference between the two?

I would love to fire these weapons but I can just go out and buy them because I don't have the money unfortunately.:(

I have fired some 5.56mm calibre weapons (including the M16 & the Ultimax 100) and the 7.62mm general purpose machine gun (GPMG). From my subjective experience, the 7.62mm GPMG is noticeably louder and deeper/richer sounding. I can always tell when a GPMG is firing in support, even when I don't see it because of vegetation blocking my view.

Maybe someone else who has tried both the M16 and the AK-47 can confirm this for you (or Tony who is a guns & ammo expert). By way of clarification, I not have fired an AK-47 before. :)

BTW 5.56mm live rounds are significantly louder than 5.56mm blanks (and I find that I need to wear ear plugs for live rounds). Even where you fire your weapon affects the perceived volume. When I do live firing in a room clearing exercise (in a confined space), with 2 weapons firing at the same time, it seems much, much louder, as compared to firing in the open, during say a section live firing exercise (with 7 to 9 weapons firing, at the same time). Writing about these weapons certainly brings back memories.

Firn

May 5th, 2009, 02:05 AM

BTW 5.56mm live rounds are significantly louder than 5.56mm blanks (and I find that I need to wear ear plugs for live rounds). Even where you fire your weapon affects the perceived volume. When I do live firing in a room clearing exercise (in a confined space), with 2 weapons firing at the same time, it seems much, much louder, as compared to firing in the open, during say a section live firing exercise (with 7 to 9 weapons firing, at the same time). Writing about these weapons certainly brings back memories.

The day I fired my first weapon in an enclosed space I became a fan of sound suppressors, I will never understand why it isn't issued to every soldier. Already out there in the open it is bad, but in a room...

All the advantages of a compact one are well worth the weight. According to a Finnish proverb it doesn't make a soldier silent, but invisible. I'm also pretty sure it partly messes up SDS, blurring the sound signature of the rifle. The bulletpath of a near supersonic bullet should still be trackable, though.

Googled now this report (http://www.marinecorpsgazette-digital.com/marinecorpsgazette/200705/?pg=58), it gives a better picture than I can give. Suppressors greatly increase also the case for bullpups...

Anyway, as OPSSG said.

F-15 Eagle

May 5th, 2009, 12:19 PM

T
Googled now this report (http://report), it gives a better picture than I can give. Suppressors greatly increase also the case for bullpups...

Anyway, as OPSSG said.

It says page load error when I tried to go the the site. I don't know the the issue is.

F-15 Eagle

May 5th, 2009, 03:08 PM

gf0012-aust

May 5th, 2009, 06:28 PM

I found this youtube video I know is just some rednecks in the woods:onfloorl: but anyway they are shooting an AK-47 and an AR-15 and there is no noise difference between the 2.

So is the 7.62 NATO louder yes, is the AK-47? No if there is a difference its not enough to tell.

I can assure you that in "real life", the report differences between an AK-47 and an M16 family are noticeable.

different tone, duration, db. you can tell straight away that there are mutiple types of weapons being used.

F-15 Eagle

May 6th, 2009, 03:43 PM

I can assure you that in "real life", the report differences between an AK-47 and an M16 family are noticeable.

different tone, duration, db. you can tell straight away that there are mutiple types of weapons being used.

So would you say one is louder than the other? If so which one is it?

I did not think there would be a difference.

I don't see how a 7.62X39 can be any louder than a 5.56 NATO. Maybe they are equally loud but just a different type of noise? Like a crack and a pop?

Gremlin29

May 7th, 2009, 10:25 PM

I own 4 semi auto AK types in 7.62x39. 1 Russian with stamped receiver standard barrel, 2 Bulgarians both of which have standard barrel, one has stamped receiver and one has a milled receiver. I also have a Chinese RPK which has a heavy receiver, trunnion and heavy long barrel. The AK's have threaded muzzles with a spring loaded plunger so I've also tried a variety of the various flash suppresor type devices including the classic slant cut, nut, etc. Aside from some odd mil surp rounds I generally use Wolf steel cased 122 grain ammo and I've pumped quite a few rounds through these weapons.

I've also fired many thousands of rounds through AR type weapons from the standard A1/A2 throught the various M4 types with short, standard, heavy and light barrels.

To me, both weapons are about as loud as the other from the shooters perspective, down range and from afar. The AK is a bit throatier than the AR and I would guesstimate is about 1/2 to one full octave lower. I searched around You Tube and there are plenty of vids of both weapons firing but none of them sound even close to how they sound in person. Both weapons have a very distinctive sound and while firing automatic they are easily distinguishable with a different bark and rate of fire. In auto the AK seems louder to me probably because of the slower cyclic rate. If you ever get a chance to fire an auto with a cyclic rate as high as the AR you will notice that the 1st round seems normal but subsequent rounds seem not nearly as loud. I think this is probably just a trick of the ear, but I don't recall ever reading about why this is.

As for muzzle devices for either weapon I haven't noticed any real appreciable difference in the types I've got experience with.

Problem with silencers is that they shoot out fast and lose their silencing ability with each round fired. They are an expensive expendable if equipping all the grunts with them. I do recall the Army issuing a Request For Proposal for what would essentially be disposable silencers with an initial purchase of 50,000 units but haven't followed what become of it. Lastly, and this may be well known but silencers work best with subsonic munitions which of course limits range, accuracy and power. That's not to say you can't use standard ammo, but the silencing effect is really just noise reduction by about 10db. Not sure that a 10db reduction is a good trade to marginalize the marginal 5.56.

Firn

May 8th, 2009, 01:17 AM

As for muzzle devices for either weapon I haven't noticed any real appreciable difference in the types I've got experience with.

Problem with silencers is that they shoot out fast and lose their silencing ability with each round fired. They are an expensive expendable if equipping all the grunts with them. I do recall the Army issuing a Request For Proposal for what would essentially be disposable silencers with an initial purchase of 50,000 units but haven't followed what become of it. Lastly, and this may be well known but silencers work best with subsonic munitions which of course limits range, accuracy and power. That's not to say you can't use standard ammo, but the silencing effect is really just noise reduction by about 10db. Not sure that a 10db reduction is a good trade to marginalize the marginal 5.56.

I disagree completely :)

Read this Report (http://www.marinecorpsgazette-digital.com/marinecorpsgazette/200705/?pg=58) from Iraq, the large Finnish Suppressor Project (http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/measure.html), this report (http://www.casr.ca/id-macpher-4.htm) from Afghanistan and this summary (http://guns.connect.fi/gow/highpow.html). Thanks Google ;)

So to sum it up it can make a huge amount of sense...

Gremlin29

May 8th, 2009, 10:14 AM

Firn

May 8th, 2009, 12:07 PM

Firn, what part do you disagree with? The articles you posted reinforce what I've said. I'm not knocking suppressors because they are useful tool, just saying they aren't practical for every line dog to have AND they degrade the performance of the 5.56. If I was in a fire fight, I wouldn't want one on my weapon. :)

You can have any weapon without a suppressor you want, as long as you don't fire near me :)

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

Take the conclusion of the Captain Dale MacPherson (an officer in the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry), 2IC B Coy deployed on Op Athena Roto 2 to Afghanistan.

Small Arms – Suppression – Silencing the Sturm und Drang

Canadian small arms have seen tremendous advances in the last few years, but one last hurdle remains. Firing both rifles and machineguns produce an enormous amount of blast and sound. Such firing will often deafen the shooter (especially in complex terrain). It also clearly gives away the position of both the shooter and his weapon. ‘Suppressing’ muzzle flash and firing noise from all small arms (from 5.56mm to 7.62mm) should be the next major priority for infantry weapon systems improvements.

While an infantryman can remain nearly invisible at night (fighting in the thermal or IR spectrum), as soon as he starts firing, his muzzle blast will quickly draw the attention of the enemy (and undoubtedly counter-fire). But suppression systems exist today that can be quickly attached to various barrels, making weapons both harder to locate during engagements and preserving the hearing of the shooter.

The utility of suppressed systems was proven in Afghanistan with the C7CT silenced rifle (right). Although adding six inches (1.5cm) to the overall length of the rifle (there are shorter models of suppressor available), B Coy was still very impressed by the numerous advantages supressed weapons offer. Easy to mount, modern suppressors can remain in a soldier’s pack, to be added or removed depending upon mission type. Such an inexpensive system would greatly increase the capabilities of the Canadian infantry. Supressors should be purchased en masse at once

Or the piece with a certain title by Marine CWO3 Michael Musselman:

The Need for Suppressors A simple piece of technology that provides long-term benefit

We can look at the suppressor as a materialsolution to hearing conservation, and we can benefit greatly from its ability to enhance the Marine’s combat effectiveness. The following are some of the many benefits in using a suppressor on an assault rifle like an M16A4 or an M4:

• Hearing conservation.
• Concealment of shooter location thereby increasing survivability.
• Increased situational awareness from ability to hear adjacent forces.
• Better command and control.
• Reduced muzzle flash.
• Reduced recoil.
• Durable/Long service life.
• Quick attachment and removal.

With current technology we can even look at the capability of suppressing our M249 squad automatic rifle and M240B/G machinegun. When looking at the M16/M4 weapons, the suppressor reduces recoil significantly as it traps the escaping gas. The gas weighs almost as much as the round itself (approximately 4 grams), thus giving an approximately 50 percent reduction in the recoil.

The few negatives in using a suppressed weapon are:

• Further imbalance of weapon forward of the center point - except bullpups
• Increased cost per weapon.
• Increased overall length.

As a Marine Corps we can’t afford to overlook this simple technology when we are actively looking for ways to increase the lethality of the Marine rifleman. This solution is at our doorstep and would take little effort to acquire.

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? ;)

F-15 Eagle

May 9th, 2009, 04:40 PM

To me, both weapons are about as loud as the other from the shooters perspective, down range and from afar. The AK is a bit throatier than the AR and I would guesstimate is about 1/2 to one full octave lower. I searched around You Tube and there are plenty of vids of both weapons firing but none of them sound even close to how they sound in person. Both weapons have a very distinctive sound and while firing automatic they are easily distinguishable with a different bark and rate of fire. In auto the AK seems louder to me probably because of the slower cyclic rate. If you ever get a chance to fire an auto with a cyclic rate as high as the AR you will notice that the 1st round seems normal but subsequent rounds seem not nearly as loud. I think this is probably just a trick of the ear, but I don't recall ever reading about why this is.

Thats what I thought their both loud but just have different types of noise and rate of fire.

As for the trick of the ear thing I think I know why that is. I think your ears are not letting as much sound in to protect your hearing which is why it does not sound as loud. The higher rate of fire the more noise there will be but I heard about the human ear not letting as much noise in the protect the ear drums. I hope this helped.;)

gf0012-aust

May 9th, 2009, 10:03 PM

As for the trick of the ear thing I think I know why that is. I think your ears are not letting as much sound in to protect your hearing which is why it does not sound as loud. The higher rate of fire the more noise there will be but I heard about the human ear not letting as much noise in the protect the ear drums. I hope this helped.;)

They are VERY different.

ballistic detection systems are setup to ID and reference within "nn" % of a weapons report characteristics. ie they can and are tuned for weapons such as AK-47's rather than just a generic auto/semi-auto or long arm. There is a reason for that kind of selectivity.

Thats why we use acoustic and digital sensors rather than rely on the lack of discrimination that the human ear generates.

the sensor systems "know" clearly that there is an Ak-47 and not an AR-15/M16/M4 in that area. It gets reported as an AK47-SKS even though thouse weapons use a variety of round and propellant mix types.

F-15 Eagle

May 11th, 2009, 02:22 PM

They are VERY different.

ballistic detection systems are setup to ID and reference within "nn" % of a weapons report characteristics. ie they can and are tuned for weapons such as AK-47's rather than just a generic auto/semi-auto or long arm. There is a reason for that kind of selectivity.

Thats why we use acoustic and digital sensors rather than rely on the lack of discrimination that the human ear generates.

the sensor systems "know" clearly that there is an Ak-47 and not an AR-15/M16/M4 in that area. It gets reported as an AK47-SKS even though thouse weapons use a variety of round and propellant mix types.

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.:D

I also know someone who owns a rifle in .338LM but it has a muzzle brake on it and it makes a very very loud high pitched crack but its so loud and uncomfortable to shoot that he sold it....it was just too loud with that muzzle brake on it.

gf0012-aust

May 11th, 2009, 05:42 PM

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.:D

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

May 18th, 2009, 10:48 AM

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

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

May 18th, 2009, 01:26 PM

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:D....just kidding.

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

Firn

May 18th, 2009, 01:34 PM

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

May 18th, 2009, 02:07 PM

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 (http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/rs/index.html) 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

May 19th, 2009, 12:06 AM

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

May 19th, 2009, 10:09 AM

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

May 19th, 2009, 02:49 PM

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

May 19th, 2009, 03:48 PM

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

May 19th, 2009, 04:07 PM

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

May 19th, 2009, 07:10 PM

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

May 19th, 2009, 08:26 PM

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

May 19th, 2009, 08:35 PM

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

May 19th, 2009, 11:26 PM

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

May 19th, 2009, 11:33 PM

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

May 20th, 2009, 03:04 PM

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

May 20th, 2009, 03:36 PM

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

May 22nd, 2009, 05:20 AM

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

May 26th, 2009, 01:53 PM

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

May 26th, 2009, 02:16 PM

.

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.

F-15 Eagle

May 26th, 2009, 03:32 PM

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.

Yep next time I shoot I have to have ear protection.

DemonSlayer

July 15th, 2009, 05:58 PM

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.

I know this thread is a little old and you have already gone over this a few times but I was wondering how are the AK-47 and M16/M4 acoustically different?

If they are both equally loud how does the acoustics differ? Is the pitch different or something?

Please forgive my ignorance I'm just a little confused on this issue and I know this thread is old but I was hoping you can help me.

eckherl

July 15th, 2009, 10:53 PM

F-15 Eagle

July 16th, 2009, 03:41 PM

Geez,

Enough of this, next chance I get at the shooting range I will grab a M16, AK-47 and throw in a AK 74 also seeings how this is Russia`s preference in rifle caliber and use a metro sonics noise dosimeter and settle it.

F-15 Eagle,

If you are out for a daily range adventure go out and get yourself a pair of ear plugs, they are not that big in cost and most gun ranges actually will give them out for free, ringing in your ears is not a good sign and you need to protect your ears while you still can. It sucks having everyone yell at you because the TV is blasting way too loud for them.:D

I found this video of some guy shooting both the M4 and AK-47. There is plenty of them on youtube though most are crappy sound quality so I don't know if this video accurately portrays the sound effects right. But at least in this video and with most others I watched on youtube the AK-47/SKS and the AR-15/M16/M4 sound pretty much the same.

YouTube - AR15, AK47
YouTube - Shooting AK-47 and a 223

eckherl,

I know I know I'm an idiot for not wearing ear plugs it was pure stupidity on my part and I learned the hard way. Next time I go shooting I will have ear protection. Though listening to loud music does not help ether.:D

gf0012-aust

July 16th, 2009, 05:41 PM

DemonSlayer

July 16th, 2009, 08:46 PM

Good grief. I am completely over this thread.

Lets ignore the fact that I worked on a project that was designed to discriminate between russian and atypical western weapons because it was designed to ID and target the shooter within microseconds of the shot.

There is a difference. If you can't hear it, then it doesn't matter because the response system and your neighbours dog can certainly tell the difference.

considering the fact that australia sold such systems to US Govt agencies (and at least 4 other countries) also seems to indicate that it works and does do as expected.

If an individual cannot hear the difference, then BFD

I'm not worried about electronic detection systems. What I'm trying to ask is what is your personal opinion on the noise difference between the 7.62X39 and 5.56X45. I'm trying to ask how is the noise different? Not whether a machine can tell the difference. How would you describe the noise of the M16 and AK-47? That's what I'm trying to say.