NationStates Jolt Archive

The usual argument. I have fired both these firearms and thorughly enjoy them both.

While I don't understand the rationale behind the question, and few, if any people here will have fired any, let alone more than one of these I don't see the point. I have fired the AK, FN and the cheap fake of the FN the RN, the AK was better and for practical perposes the AK far outstrips all the others. There really isn't a discussion to be had on this issue and its as pointless as you last one.

While I don't understand the rationale behind the question, and few, if any people here will have fired any, let alone more than one of these I don't see the point. I have fired the AK, FN and the cheap fake of the FN the RN, the AK was better and for practical perposes the AK far outstrips all the others. There really isn't a discussion to be had on this issue and its as pointless as you last one.

Pointless? This is a forum board after all. Thus is the standard.

The usual argument. I have fired both these firearms and thorughly enjoy them both.

I "like" firing the AK more but I'm more accurate w/ the M-16.

As for function. The M-16 is more accurate and is superior in the hands of an individual specifically trained in it.

The AK-47 is simpler to use and is a better piece for rough/dirty field use.

All depends on the application.

The AK-47 is MUCH better than the M16 and any of its incarnations. There's not much place for discussion about this subject.

M16 has a longer barrel than the AK47 so it is much more accurate, plus the M16 is lighter.

Peh. Give me a Winchester (18)92 in .357 over any of them. I like my Assault Rifles to have a little history. :D

Viet Nam, Nicaraga, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq (again)

They both have plenty of history

Only the AK appears on a national Flag (Mozambique) and realistically look how many of them there are and where they ahve been used. Cheap efficient, adaptable, what more can you want...

Viet Nam, Nicaraga, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq (again) They both have plenty of history
Heh. Perhaps, but I like the fact that the Henry Rifle (the basic lever action rifle) wat the first "evil assault rifle" that held too many bullets and shot too fast. ;)

"That Damn Yankee Rifle that you can load on Sunday and shoot all week!" :eek:

IIRC the Turks put Winchesters to good use against the Russians in the late 18's & early 19's too, using 2 man fireteams, one loading the Winchester, and the other mowing down Russians inside of 200 yaards...

It depends what you're looking for. If you want something that's easy to use and gets the job done, the AK-47 is probably your choice. If you want something accurate, you might pick a M4.

I picked "no preference" because it would depend on what I want and what role I envision using it. Just as countries have to consider their combat doctrine when they procure military technology, people have to consider what their uses are for anything they buy.

Give me a good western gun over that Russian POS any day. The Steyr AUG for preference, but I'll take an M-16.

The AK-47's only good point is it's ease of maintenance. Otherwise, it is less accurate, shorter ranged and less reliable than an M-16.

All I can say from experience is, I do better with an AK-47 at CS than with an M4, partly because the better stopping power of the bullets, and partly because as strange as it sounds, I get more headshots with the AK. First couple of rounds seem to be more accurate than the M4, but if you're firing longer bursts, your accuracy drops to almost zero. :mp5:

It all depends on the application.

The AK-47 looks better when firing it into the air as you burn an American flag.

'Nuff said.

what about the SKS - my personal fav is a yugoslavian version with rifle grenades.

and AK rocks ass than any other type. But sks is cooler

Rk.95TP (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as43-e.htm) all the way!

Having owned and fired sevral Aks and M4s, I believe i can speek with some expierence when I say the the M 4 is a far supierior weapon. The AK is built with loose tollerances in the receiver which cause the bolt to get caught when pulling it back in a rushed situation. The ak also tents to get spent shells caught in the receiver when ejecting them. not to mention the ak kicks like a donkey, makeing it less sutible for accurate rapid fire. The M4 dosn't have theese problems. the M4 round also has a higher fps makeing it more sutible for bodyarmor pennetration.:mp5:

AK-47 The classic rebel/terrorist weapon.

You pansies. I personally prefer a groundburst 50 kiloton nuclear weapon (having owned and fired several of these), and find that it's so much esier to hit a target when you only need to be within a few miles of it.

I "like" firing the AK more but I'm more accurate w/ the M-16.

As for function. The M-16 is more accurate and is superior in the hands of an individual specifically trained in it.

The AK-47 is simpler to use and is a better piece for rough/dirty field use.

All depends on the application.

Completely agree. The AK-47 is a bit easier to keep from jamming because of dirtiness, however, it is almost useless at long range. Now, for my purposes I would very much prefer I have an M-16 and my enemy to have a AK-47, because I'd be putting him down long before he was in range to threaten me. And if we are fighting in close range such as house to house or whatnot, give me a pistol. It's much more maneuverable and I can get plenty of stopping power out of it.

I've fired the AK-47, the M-16, and the P-90, and I think the M16 owns them all. Accurate, lightweight, and enough reliability to get the job(s) done.

Having owned and fired sevral Aks and M4s, I believe i can speek with some expierence when I say the the M 4 is a far supierior weapon. The AK is built with loose tollerances in the receiver which cause the bolt to get caught when pulling it back in a rushed situation. The ak also tents to get spent shells caught in the receiver when ejecting them. not to mention the ak kicks like a donkey, makeing it less sutible for accurate rapid fire. The M4 dosn't have theese problems. the M4 round also has a higher fps makeing it more sutible for bodyarmor pennetration.:mp5:

I haven't used the M4, but I have fired an M16 and put a bullet through a cinderblock wall in a demonstration. There is something to be said for a weapon that can shoot you WHILE you're hiding behind a brick wall.

I chose the G3.

More accurate than the M16 with more stopping power and only slightly poorer reliability than an AK.

Plus, it's German. Which makes it inherently sexy!

I chose the G3.

More accurate than the M16 with more stopping power and only slightly poorer reliability than an AK.

Plus, it's German. Which makes it inherently sexy!
I suppose if I had to pick a modern, gas-operated rifle it would be either the G3 or M14.

I like FN FAL's. Great all around, although they're a little large.

As far as the debate goes, in most cases I'll take the M-16 over the AK. Better range and accuracy are terrific advantages over the AK.

However, if I were ambushing, I'd pick the AK. Who needs range when you can pop up out of nowhere and spray powerful 7.62 rounds? Not to mention, the Ak has great durability.

I like FN FAL's. Great all around, although they're a little large.

As far as the debate goes, in most cases I'll take the M-16 over the AK. Better range and accuracy are terrific advantages over the AK.

However, if I were ambushing, I'd pick the AK. Who needs range when you can pop up out of nowhere and spray powerful 7.62 rounds? Not to mention, the Ak has great durability.
If I were ambushing, I would use aimed fire so I didn't have to reload in the middle of a firefight... :rolleyes:

You pansies. I personally prefer a groundburst 50 kiloton nuclear weapon (having owned and fired several of these), and find that it's so much esier to hit a target when you only need to be within a few miles of it.

FUCK YEAH! me too. the gun is outdated.

Kar.98k

I don't feel like there's as much power when I fired off an M16. Never shot with an AK before though.

If I were ambushing, I would use aimed fire so I didn't have to reload in the middle of a firefight... :rolleyes:

You won't kill as many as you would if you took the time for precision shooting. It's an ambush. You need to kill as many as you can in the surprise round. Take the time to reload as your buddies give you cover fire.

You won't kill as many as you would if you took the time for precision shooting. It's an ambush. You need to kill as many as you can in the surprise round. Take the time to reload as your buddies give you cover fire.
That's what the crew-served MG is for. Spray-n-pray is a good way to hit nothing.

When you have a target rich enviornment, you can use aimed fire and hit one target every 3/4 to 1 second.

You won't kill as many as you would if you took the time for precision shooting. It's an ambush. You need to kill as many as you can in the surprise round. Take the time to reload as your buddies give you cover fire.

We experimented with this. It's very obvious that you will kill more with aimed fire than with a spray. 7.62's are not going to stop people unless they're kill shots. This isn't the movies. Sprayed fire generally doesn't hit what it is supposed to. Even machine guns are usually put on tracks so that they spray a line because it would be incredibly difficulty to do with most rapid-fire weapons.

That's what the crew-served MG is for. Spray-n-pray is a good way to hit nothing.

When you have a target rich enviornment, you can use aimed fire and hit one target every 3/4 to 1 second.

Yes, exactly. I think people who say that don't realize the kick an AK gives. Even an M16 which has much less kick tends to climb when modified to spray or on three-round burst. There is little chance that one could be effective spraying a weapon like that.

does love count?

Wheres the support for the good old L85? Sure it was fraught with problems and followed on the heels of the SLR, but it has merit. It is shorter than most assault rifles by 20% due to its bullpup design, and is just as accurate. In fact, it is more accurate in some situations due to the additional weight of the weapon, which both helps keep squaddies strong and improves the stability. Unfortunately this is the only weapon I have fired (well...weapons family, bring on the LSW) so I can't argue for or against the others, just thought I'd pipe up for the British rifle!

does love count?

Yes, but the rate of fire is shit, and the range sucks too. It's a bitch to reload too. But it's a whole lot of fun.

:fluffle:

I'll take the Steyr AUG.
It's lightweight, you can aim or spray, it's durable, efficient, reliable, with reasonable range... heck, it even has telescopic sight.
And that's just the standard version of the austrian army.
There are bigger clips, with up to 60 rounds and versions banned in Austria have a V0 greater than 1000 m/s, meaning even a graze can kill you.
Oh, and with the right equipment (better telescopic sight, longer barrel) you can turn it into a sniper rifle.

And I've been trained with it. At my best times I could disassemble it and put it back together in just under 1:30 min.

Well I am a Spc. in the US Army. So naturally I would prefer the M4 but that doesn't mean I am not correct. The AK-47 has several flaws that make it inferior to the M4. Accuracy is a major factor the AK-47 lacks the accuracy that the M4 and M16 have. The AK-47 is unable to consistenly hit targets at 100-150 meters. While the M4 and M16 can target them easily at 300 meters. Not to mention the M4 and M16 are considerably more durable than the AK 47 this weapon if one piece is removed can be broke by a small child. These are some of the differences that I can come up with off the top of my head. But there are more. Quickly put the AK-47 is a cheap and effective killer at short ranges. But the M16 outperforms it.

The usual argument. I have fired both these firearms and thorughly enjoy them both.


Been here, done that, Bought the T-Shirt.


I swear one of these threads pops up at least monthly if not weekly.

Well I am a Spc. in the US Army. So naturally I would prefer the M4 but that doesn't mean I am not correct. The AK-47 has several flaws that make it inferior to the M4. Accuracy is a major factor the AK-47 lacks the accuracy that the M4 and M16 have. The AK-47 is unable to consistenly hit targets at 100-150 meters. While the M4 and M16 can target them easily at 300 meters. Not to mention the M4 and M16 are considerably more durable than the AK 47 this weapon if one piece is removed can be broke by a small child. These are some of the differences that I can come up with off the top of my head. But there are more. Quickly put the AK-47 is a cheap and effective killer at short ranges. But the M16 outperforms it.150-300 meters... as a Spc. of the US army... you think the guys, I stress 'the guys', are supposed to hit it accurately?! It's called an assault rifle for a purpose...

150-300 meters... as a Spc. of the US army... you think the guys, I stress 'the guys', are supposed to hit it accurately?! It's called an assault rifle for a purpose...

That's a joke, right? The goal is always to hit them before they hit you. When someone wants to kill you 100 meters is much too close for comfort and, at that range, the AK-47 is already unreliable.

That's a joke, right? The goal is always to hit them before they hit you. When someone wants to kill you 100 meters is much too close for comfort and, at that range, the AK-47 is already unreliable.
No. No Joke. My crew - A standard Finnish Artillerey Observer Group - would have had a sniper rifle with a semi-good shot with it any time. I would have been required to take that 300 meters assault rifle shooting person out. It's not like it's m16 against AK, is it?

It's nice if you can shoot over 200-300 meters shots with an assault rifle accurately, though.

i have rarly seen any combat with many aplications for ranges over 100 meters, i'm not saying that they are not there or that they are not important but 'most' 'modren' combat with small arms tend to be closer. and feqently you cannot tell that they are your enimys untill they are within 100 meters. also i would like to note one important thing about the m16 family's reliability, most people who note it know proper maintenece procedures. those who don't rave about ak 47's reliability. also about the neighsayeres to 'spray-'n'-pray' you would be suprised how effective it can be if you are the one ambushed. granted, you probably won't actualy hit anyone but keeping the oppositions heads down can give you time to get to cover. also as an ambusher without amunition restrictions it can be usefull to drive your oppositions to take cover in positions easily cleared by your more precise shooters. not realy a good tactic, but valid.

over all i would say that the ak 47 is better simply because it is cheaper, and far more effective in the hands of people with limited training/resorces, primearaly due to its loose tollerances. perhaps not stictly the 'better' gun but far more effective per cost. oh and its allot simpler to obtain spare parts for an ak in most parts of the world. and i should note that i am unfairly predudiced agenst the m16a1 and there for most of its family.

:edit: i should note that i am looking at it ak/m16 family mostly. pritty much all of the guns have features that make them superior in certain situations.

Other

Mp5

cough**p90**


but, although it can be broken by a small child, these days so can most weapons. but unlike some modern weapons, the AK can be used with ease by children. these days they are used by small children. thats a point i havent seen brought up- the AKs ease of use. you can be trained with an AK 47 in under an hour. and thats not only the saftey- thats loading, unloading, field stripping, and other things.

I suppose if I had to pick a modern, gas-operated rifle it would be either the G3 or M14.
Should it be me, the anti-gun rabid left-winger, who corrects you on an issue of firearms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G3
The G3 isn't gas-operated. It's an old-school rifle and it needed to be cleaned constantly (or so says my dad, who went through two years with the thing...aparently no one wanted to shoot during maneuvres because it would entail spending an age and a half cleaning it).

I think you might mean the G36 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G36), which would be one of my favourite rifles.

And the MP5 is dead. Long live the MP7!

No. No Joke. My crew - A standard Finnish Artillerey Observer Group - would have had a sniper rifle with a semi-good shot with it any time. I would have been required to take that 300 meters assault rifle shooting person out. It's not like it's m16 against AK, is it?

It's nice if you can shoot over 200-300 meters shots with an assault rifle accurately, though.

Actually, in recent history it has often been M-16 against AK-47's.

Well I am a Spc. in the US Army. So naturally I would prefer the M4 but that doesn't mean I am not correct. The AK-47 has several flaws that make it inferior to the M4. Accuracy is a major factor the AK-47 lacks the accuracy that the M4 and M16 have. The AK-47 is unable to consistenly hit targets at 100-150 meters. While the M4 and M16 can target them easily at 300 meters. Not to mention the M4 and M16 are considerably more durable than the AK 47 this weapon if one piece is removed can be broke by a small child. These are some of the differences that I can come up with off the top of my head. But there are more. Quickly put the AK-47 is a cheap and effective killer at short ranges. But the M16 outperforms it.

I have a Ak-47 and a m16. My Ak is just as accurate as the M16. The Ak-47 is more reliable than the M16, it can be fired in wet cement mix. I have hit paper targets with my Kalashnikov at 500 yards consitantly. Another myth is that the Ak is uncontrolable on full-auto, not so, I have no trouble hiting human sized targets with it in this function.

(Posted by Fascist Emirates via friends login)

Hooyah.

It's a matter of accuracy versus reliability. Although the AK is much more reliable and lasts longer in worse conditions, the M16 can fire much more accurately at long distances. I'd go with AK, since you don't have to be far to take out alot of people.

I have a Ak-47 and a m16. My Ak is just as accurate as the M16. The Ak-47 is more reliable than the M16, it can be fired in wet cement mix. I have hit paper targets with my Kalashnikov at 500 yards consitantly. Another myth is that the Ak is uncontrolable on full-auto, not so, I have no trouble hiting human sized targets with it in this function.

(Posted by Fascist Emirates via friends login)

Hooyah.

At what distance? I could paint a face on you at 500 yards with an M-16.

It's a matter of accuracy versus reliability. Although the AK is much more reliable and lasts longer in worse conditions, the M16 can fire much more accurately at long distances. I'd go with AK, since you don't have to be far to take out alot of people.

Most combat takes place in under 300 meters so you are one of an enlightened few. And the Ak is guaranted one shot kill.

Fascist Emirates again, Hooyah.

Let me compare the AKM to the M16A2:

+ More durable
+ More reliable
+ Easy to clean
+ Lighter (3.14 kg compared to 3.77 kg, empty weights)
+ Full auto mode (at close range it can save your life)
- 20% less range

Range is not much of an issue. I'll give you a cookie if you can hit anything beyond 400, hell, 300 metres without sniper training (which the vast majority of soldiers don't have). Kalashnikov said it himself, soldiers just don't engage at that distance with assault rifles.

At what distance? I could paint a face on you at 500 yards with an M-16.

How juvenile. At distance generaly refers to 400 meters+. This is degrading into useless banter.

Hooyah.

Marines are required to shoot at man-sized targets from 500 yards to qualify on the M-16.

How juvenile. At distance generaly refers to 400 meters+. This is degrading into useless banter.

Hooyah.

No, you claimed the AK-47 is just as accurate as an M-16. Can you make a face on a target at 500 yards with an AK-47? I can't. I can do it with an M-16, however, and have.

EDIT: http://usmcweapons.com/articles/m16/M16A2NF.htm

The M-16 is known to have be used by regular servicemen at up to half a mile.

Marines are required to shoot at man-sized targets from 500 yards to qualify on the M-16.
Is that with all the zooming sights and so on though?

Is that with all the zooming sights and so on though?

No, of course not. We were not allowed anything that was a basic part of the rifle. That was just using the snap sights that are a standand part of the standard issue rifle. Trust me, I was competing with about 20 people among a company of 400 or so that could all draw on a target from 500 yards with nothing but the rifle and sling. Incidentally, I lost.

500-Meter Stare

One particularly egregious element of the KD course is the almost religious attachment the Marine Corps marksmanship community has to the strings fired from the 500 meter line. Marines often declaim with pride that the Corps is the only Service to still shoot at this distance. True, but largely irrelevant in the context of point target field firing applications. In short, KD firing at 500 meters is a largely artificial exercise that traces its origins to a bygone era and now obsolete tactical doctrine.

Hitting a man-sized target in the real world at beyond battle sight zero distances with an issue Service rifle is a much different proposition than doing so on a target range. Yes, under ideal conditions (KD, distinct target, wind flags, loop slings, etc.) a Marine with an M16A2 can hit point targets at ranges out to half a kilometer. However, doing so in the field, beyond the pointblank range of a given cartridge (i.e., the distance at which you can hold point of aim, point of impact, and make a decent hit), is a low probability event.
Heck, I'd underline everything. :D

Heck, I'd underline everything. :D

Which would be relevant if it wasn't common for us to test people using a range more similar to army training where we shot targets that popped up in the woods without knowing where they would be.

Pft. You guys are thinking of relics. A weapon nowadays consists of this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v459/MajorMidget/halo-2-20041019010424616.jpg

Most combat takes place in under 300 meters so you are one of an enlightened few. And the Ak is guaranted one shot kill.

Fascist Emirates again, Hooyah.

The AK-47 is generally held to be fairly inaccurate unless a target is well under 100m away.

No, of course not. We were not allowed anything that was a basic part of the rifle...
That's even sillier then.

Not only will you never have to engage anyone at those distances, but if you have to, you'd be equipped with everything you need to make it easier anyways. The M16A4 comes with a whole kit of gatgets, and chances are that the grunts would be using them, just as the grunts use everything the G36 has to offer.

The M-16 is known to have be used by regular servicemen at up to half a mile.
Yah, but what good is a .22 Poodle Shooter Bullet at that range? That's what M14 SOCOM rifles in .308/7.62 NATO are for. :D

Oh, sorry, I noticed it went on a bit.

500-Meter Stare (cont.)

If you don’t believe me, set up several “E” silhouettes on typical terrain at distances between 450 and 550 meters (allowing for a 10 percent range estimation error, quite good under field conditions.) Let a random selection of infantry Marines with KD expert ratings fire at these targets from improvised field positions and note the results. I guarantee that the scores will be far different than those that occur in the target range environment of loop slings and dope books.

The bottom line, Marines spend an inordinate amount of time shooting at “E” silhouettes at 500 yards on the target range. In particular, the effort expended on teaching and practicing this esoteric skill during recruit training could be put to much better use as it requires an excessive amount of time for the benefits attained, complicates the teaching of marksmanship fundamentals, and contributes unnecessarily to the stress on the aspiring Marine.

I suggest firing the 10 rounds currently expended at this distance at 100 yards instead. Statistically, this is a more likely shooting problem, and the techniques required to make quick hits at this distance are different than those required on an NM-type course. A paradigm shift? You bet! But it is one in tune with real-world urban applications.
Jocabia, you missed my point. I was just putting in evidence that the range advantage of the M16A2 is meaningless.

The AK-47 is generally held to be fairly inaccurate unless a target is well under 100m away.
Is that so? When? Where?

The only reason the AK-47 is up there is because Russia is really one big Ak-47 factory. Every person works on making AK-47s and RPGs to sell to 3rd world countries. It the only way they could make so much. Any other industry in Russia doesn't exist, and is part of the conspirecy.
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

That's even sillier then.

Not only will you never have to engage anyone at those distances, but if you have to, you'd be equipped with everything you need to make it easier anyways. The M16A4 comes with a whole kit of gatgets, and chances are that the grunts would be using them, just as the grunts use everything the G36 has to offer.

The point is to not rely on those gadgets. The biggest part of learning to use the weapon is simply to learn how to steady yourself and how to use the rifle correctly. There are few that would claim that shooting on the range is equivalent to shooting on the battlefield. It's much like training in any form of combat. It can't be completely accurate so it is designed around teaching you skills that will be useful in actual combat.

Yah, but what good is a .22 Poodle Shooter Bullet at that range? That's what M14 SOCOM rifles in .308/7.62 NATO are for. :D

Oh, I agree, but I think the M16's are very effective at close range, most combat does not lend itself to fully automatic rifles especially when rounds are often hard to come by in heavy warfare (which is admittedly less of an issue these days), and it gives you the extra opportunity should it arise to take out a target at a good distance. And we keep talking about urban warfare, it's not likely that one would have a great deal of difficulty hitting a target 150 meters away with an M16 in a street bordered by buildings. You think this doesn't matter but if I can hit a guy whose head is slight above a window sill rather than storming a building, hell yeah, I'd prefer to do it. Also the same mechanism that makes an M16 slightly less of a stopper and much greater at range is the mechanism that makes it pass through things and you can't tell me that's not a benefit in urban warfare.

The point is to not rely on those gadgets. The biggest part of learning to use the weapon is simply to learn how to steady yourself and how to use the rifle correctly. There are few that would claim that shooting on the range is equivalent to shooting on the battlefield. It's much like training in any form of combat. It can't be completely accurate so it is designed around teaching you skills that will be useful in actual combat.
But as that article from the marines gazette tells us (and no, I have never fired a weapon in my life), the skills used for firing at something 500m away and at 100m away are quite different, and I think that makes sense.

Oh, sorry, I noticed it went on a bit.


Jocabia, you missed my point. I was just putting in evidence that the range advantage of the M16A2 is meaningless.

The article assumes the purpose of the range is to teach Marines to shoot at range, but it is more to teach Marines to operate the rifle as effectively as possible in ideal conditions. Why? Because as conditions degrade, you want to be starting at the best point possible. You can't actually expose marines to combat so you teach them to be as effective as possible in non-combat and try to give them the strength to apply that well in combat. Given the rather effective use of this training in the USMC, I would say it's fairly tried and true.

Also, keep in mind that the range is useful for more than range. The rifle shoots so accurately because of rifling and the ability to keep the bullet straight, this also lends itself to piercing armor and whatnot.

Is that so? When? Where?

I'll look in a minute.

But as that article from the marines gazette tells us (and no, I have never fired a weapon in my life), the skills used for firing at something 500m away and at 100m away are quite different, and I think that makes sense.

We do all of those in a whole bunch of different ways.

We do all of those in a whole bunch of different ways.
Hmm...

Well, considering that some US military services have been exposed to criticism because of the unprofessional behaviour of servicemen (although I don't think it was the marines - someone check that) and a lack of cultural sensitivity and language skills, I'm thinking some priorities might have to be changed.

Yes, during the Cold War everyone had to be prepared to fight in Ragnarok, and that was all that counted: Kill and don't get killed until the nuke falls on you.

But these days, warfare isn't like that anymore. Soldiers are no longer people sent to kill, they are people sent to stabilise, to secure and often to represent. That is an entirely different skillset, and maybe a little more training in those areas would be better than learning how to shoot at a target you would never encounter in modern warfare (Have you watched Jarhead? You might not get to use your weapon at all...:p ).

I've never fired either so I won't comment, but I'm jealous of those who have had the oprotunity to...sorry about spelling...

I voted for the XM-8, but if I had to choose between an AK-47 and an M-16, I would absolutly choose the AK-47. The M-16 has an inferior round. 5.56x45mm is very small compared to the AK-47's 7.62x54 bullet. The AK-47's round is also able to do more damage. It creates what is called hydraulic shock. There is a slight air-filled space in the center of the round, and it causes massive trauma. The AK-47 is one of the most reliable assault rifles in the world. It has more space between the internal parts and the frame than the M-16. You can literally take a handful of sand an throw it into the reciever and fire it. Try that with an M-16. Actually, don't. You might get hurt.

Hmm...

Well, considering that some US military services have been exposed to criticism because of the unprofessional behaviour of servicemen (although I don't think it was the marines - someone check that) and a lack of cultural sensitivity and language skills, I'm thinking some priorities might have to be changed.

Yes, during the Cold War everyone had to be prepared to fight in Ragnarok, and that was all that counted: Kill and don't get killed until the nuke falls on you.

But these days, warfare isn't like that anymore. Soldiers are no longer people sent to kill, they are people sent to stabilise, to secure and often to represent. That is an entirely different skillset, and maybe a little more training in those areas would be better than learning how to shoot at a target you would never encounter in modern warfare (Have you watched Jarhead? You might not get to use your weapon at all...:p ).

The people you are mentioning are generally people who should have been trained in their field and weren't or weren't properly. That's the flaw. It's not a matter of trading training. It's a matter of teaching the appropriate training instead of doing nothing as is common (not always so, but way too often) in NG and reserve units. My reserve unit, when I was in the reserves, we spent a good deal of time training and people were always surprised that we were competent (and in a highly technical field). There is plenty of time for training but until recently many units simply didn't spend the time they should. Don't take the problems the military has faced as an indicator that most military people are poorly trained or that there is not enough time for proper training.

Anyway, back to the poll, I was appalled when I didn't find the H&K G36 in it! Blasphemy! :p

Anyway, back to the poll, I was appalled when I didn't find the H&K G36 in it! Blasphemy! :p
I've got a feeling some people confuse the G3 with the G36.

But still - it is blasphemy. Along with the C7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diemaco_C7) and the SAR-21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR-21).

for military purposes, this depends entirely on the structure of your army and your goal.

i personally like the g36, so i guess the xm8 even though the project got dropped.

although, if i could have any gun it would be a sopmod m14

I say the M16 cause to me it is a powerful weap, has good range, great re-fire rate, can do heavy damage, and is pretty accurate.

I still think that when it comes right down to it I'd rather have a .357 Lever Rifle or - if I have to choose box-fed - an 18" M-14.

All I can say from experience is, I do better with an AK-47 at CS than with an M4, partly because the better stopping power of the bullets, and partly because as strange as it sounds, I get more headshots with the AK. First couple of rounds seem to be more accurate than the M4, but if you're firing longer bursts, your accuracy drops to almost zero. :mp5:

I can give you a LONG ass list of things that are wrong with the physics of that game.

But i still love it and I Play CS Source Religiously.

AK-47.

The M16 works better in perfect conditions. The AK-47 works better in actual conditions. It is not as accurate, but it is cheaper, more reliable (doesn't matter how accurate your gun is if it stops working), fires a bigger bullet and it's more durable. It is easier to use, or so I've heard. Also, the M16's longer range is only going to matter to someone highly trained/skilled anyway.

All I can say from experience is, I do better with an AK-47 at CS than with an M4, partly because the better stopping power of the bullets, and partly because as strange as it sounds, I get more headshots with the AK. First couple of rounds seem to be more accurate than the M4, but if you're firing longer bursts, your accuracy drops to almost zero. :mp5:

Yep, because CS is the most realistic simulation ever designed.

Yep, because CS is the most realistic simulation ever designed.

with the leftward direction brass Ejection on bullpup weapons with right hand shooter.


With the Saw being that innaccurate

with a .338 Magnum Round killing a man in one shot to the forearm.

with someone surviving 6 hits in the torso from a 5.7mm P90

With the FN Fiveseven having that much recoil(there is literally almost none)

or for that matter the MP5 as well.

The P90 is supposed to be able to put a burst of 50 rounds(the whole mag) into a basketball at 50 yards.


oh the .308 (Scout) M24 not dropping someone in Upper torso hit.


And i could go on and on and on.

The usual argument. I have fired both these firearms and thorughly enjoy them both.

i love my ak..it always goes bang!

had an ar15,nice and accurate weapon...but good weapons dont make up for bad skills or training...and a bad weapon in a skilled hand is more effective then a great weapon in unskilled hands.

my 2 cents...also had an h and k in .223...what a gun..loved that weapon like i love my family..but alas..the police took it for their swat team on a plea agreement..oh well.:sniper:

I still think that when it comes right down to it I'd rather have a .357 Lever Rifle or - if I have to choose box-fed - an 18" M-14.

what about a bolt .270?

i love mine..i can shoot the wings off a gnat at a 100 yards..then run and cover..lol:sniper:

While I don't understand the rationale behind the question, and few, if any people here will have fired any, let alone more than one of these I don't see the point. I have fired the AK, FN and the cheap fake of the FN the RN, the AK was better and for practical perposes the AK far outstrips all the others. There really isn't a discussion to be had on this issue and its as pointless as you last one.
First, in my heart I agree--about the guns. Though I like the FN, very much as well.

The M-16 has demonstrated an ability to consistantly out perform the AK.

....I know all the arguements--I make them for the AK.

And when passion comes to an end and reality sets in, the AK is not the superior weapon for all practical circumstances.

I will never say this again by the way.

First, in my heart I agree--about the guns. Though I like the FN, very much as well.

The M-16 has demonstrated an ability to consistantly out perform the AK.

....I know all the arguements--I make them for the AK.

And when passion comes to an end and reality sets in, the AK is not the superior weapon for all practical circumstances.

I will never say this again by the way.

Friend you don't know what your talking about. Having fired both and having heard my dads osi repots when I was in highschool the ak is the weapon to have. rugged and relyable and also fairly available the ak packs a hell of a punch. true the m16 has a batter range. but that dosen't mean jack shit when your in a toe to toe slugging match. not only that but the ak is a sand eater meaning it fires in almost any conditions with very little matinance. the m16 is normaly found in the hands of more competent marks men so obviously one will see the m16 user out prefoming the ragg tag insergant who is using an ak. both guns have merits and draw backs but to say that the m16 out classes the ak is a stupid shit thing to say.

I've got a feeling some people confuse the G3 with the G36.

But still - it is blasphemy. Along with the C7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diemaco_C7) and the SAR-21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR-21).

no he chose g3 because it is a far better weapon then the g36. I've fired both and I prefer the g3 currently looking to by one but can't find any at a reasonable price.

Hkmp-5

Please guys the M16 has longer range. If your stuck in a trench heck go with the M16. Special Forces agree. You can pick off the others before they come close with AK's. Smarter choice even though they jam, that can be fixed. Sure Ak has a harder punch and takes rougher conditions but still the M16 has made it through plenty of wars and rough conditions. I take longer range because heck its a stupid idea to get close with either. If your stuck in the middle of the Middle east by yourself sure go with Ak for safety. But in choice SF agree M16/M4 go over any ak

Please guys the M16 has longer range. If your stuck in a trench heck go with the M16. Special Forces agree. You can pick off the others before they come close with AK's. Smarter choice even though they jam, that can be fixed.

ok if were going along that mind set then use the fn fal or the g3 because they have greater firepower range and accuracy.

Hkmp-5

got one thing to say: UMP in .45

AK-47.

The M16 works better in perfect conditions. The AK-47 works better in actual conditions. It is not as accurate, but it is cheaper, more reliable (doesn't matter how accurate your gun is if it stops working), fires a bigger bullet and it's more durable. It is easier to use, or so I've heard. Also, the M16's longer range is only going to matter to someone highly trained/skilled anyway.

exactly, that's why it depends entirely on your army

a guerilla army in somalia will be much less effective with m16's than with AK's

however, a professional military force with proper training will do much better with an m16.

or you could have both and go with an m14

I woudl have to say My choice goes to the Ak-47 and it's follow ups such as the Ak-74us and the modern day rifle of the Chinese PLA

the type95-OBZ Assualt rifle.

but In terms of design and weight I perfer the OBZ.

I voted for the XM-8, but if I had to choose between an AK-47 and an M-16, I would absolutly choose the AK-47. The M-16 has an inferior round. 5.56x45mm is very small compared to the AK-47's 7.62x54 bullet. The AK-47's round is also able to do more damage. It creates what is called hydraulic shock. There is a slight air-filled space in the center of the round, and it causes massive trauma.


Incorrect, this is a common myth that was proven wrong in Vietnam.

The 5.56 round can do just as much damage as a 7.62, and is not by any means inferior because of its smaller size. The velocity at which the 5.56 round travels is so great that its smaller size means nothing. The AK-47 fires the 7.62 at a muzzle velocity of 710 m/s. The M-16 fires the 5.56 round at a muzzle velocity of 980 m/s.

This was a concern among US military brass during the Vietnam era when the M14 was the standard rifle. They, and even Kalashnikov soon admitted that the 5.56 was just as deadly as the 7.62. (Saw that from a Kalashnikov interview on the History channel).

While the 7.62 does indeed create a large cavity when it connects with flesh, the 5.56 fragments, creating a very large wound that is just as hard to survive. I've seen both rounds fired into ballistics gel, and both bullets will screw you up just as bad.

how is using an AK any easier than an M16. With both you slap a magazine in, pull the charging handle and let it go, bam round chambered. Flip the AK's lever down 2 levels to semi-auto, pull the trigger. Flick the M-16's switch from safe to semi, pull the trigger.


That seems real difficult doesn't it? not really. My point exactly.


Now disassembly of an M16 isn't very difficult either. (never disassembled an AK so i can't speak for it)

Knock out the rear take down pin, Shotgun the weapon(pivot the Upper and lower receiver on the front Takedown Pin) Pull on the charging handle and the whole Bolt assembly comes out. If you just needed a quick cleaning in the field this is as far as you need to go. If you want a full field strip you have to take the Bolt Assembly apart.

how is using an AK any easier than an M16. With both you slap a magazine in, pull the charging handle and let it go, bam round chambered. Flip the AK's lever down 2 levels to semi-auto, pull the trigger. Flick the M-16's switch from safe to semi, pull the trigger.


That seems real difficult doesn't it? not really. My point exactly.


Now disassembly of an M16 isn't very difficult either. (never disassembled an AK so i can't speak for it)

Knock out the rear take down pin, Shotgun the weapon(pivot the Upper and lower receiver on the front Takedown Pin) Pull on the charging handle and the whole Bolt assembly comes out. If you just needed a quick cleaning in the field this is as far as you need to go. If you want a full field strip you have to take the Bolt Assembly apart.

Let me make it clear to you... That not everyone are comfortble with one rifle. Everyone has their own taste in their own type of atuomatic rifle...

And beside which weapon do you see Gangsters, and Mob use these days... exactly Ak-47.... Majority rules in the Ak-47.

"I voted for the XM-8, but if I had to choose between an AK-47 and an M-16, I would absolutly choose the AK-47. The M-16 has an inferior round. 5.56x45mm is very small compared to the AK-47's 7.62x54 bullet. The AK-47's round is also able to do more damage. It creates what is called hydraulic shock. There is a slight air-filled space in the center of the round, and it causes massive trauma. "

BTW its 7.62x39mm for the AK 47 and SKS.

I think the 7.62x54mm was the Soviet Mosin-Nagant round.

Let me make it clear to you... That not everyone are comfortble with one rifle. Everyone has their own taste in their own type of atuomatic rifle...

And beside which weapon do you see Gangsters, and Mob use these days... exactly Ak-47.... Majority rules in the Ak-47.


Well lets see, market is flooded with Illegal AK-47's. They use it because its available not because its the best. And just out of curiosity, other than in Movies or Pop culture, how many Gangsters and Mobsters do you see. How many do you associate with?


Where is your credibility?

I'm on the other hand a Spc in the US Army. And very familiar and comfortable with the Colt M-16A2 and Colt M-4

"I voted for the XM-8, but if I had to choose between an AK-47 and an M-16, I would absolutly choose the AK-47. The M-16 has an inferior round. 5.56x45mm is very small compared to the AK-47's 7.62x54 bullet. The AK-47's round is also able to do more damage. It creates what is called hydraulic shock. There is a slight air-filled space in the center of the round, and it causes massive trauma. "

BTW its 7.62x39mm for the AK 47 and SKS.

I think the 7.62x54mm was the Soviet Mosin-Nagant round.

Thats on.

I voted for the XM-8 as well. Though I've never shot it, and dont see myself having the oppurtunity anytime soon I was watching the test fire on "Mail Call".

Light, high ammo capacity, mech and laser sights that are accurate, and its easy to convert for different functions; <5 minutes, if I remember right?

Well lets see, market is flooded with Illegal AK-47's. They use it because its available not because its the best. And just out of curiosity, other than in Movies or Pop culture, how many Gangsters and Mobsters do you see. How many do you associate with?


Where is your credibility?

I'm on the other hand a Spc in the US Army. And very familiar and comfortable with the Colt M-16A2 and Colt M-4


In terms.. I know a 1 out of 100 people around me that carries Ak's but that's not the issue... You ask yourself this... if given a choice to the people... either street gangsters or civilian... what would be the major choice of an automatic rifle?

My credibility dosen't come from T.V. or Games as you think i retreive such information it's obvious if you can google it up... their are 5 diffrent sites where people majority in New york nor cali carries these type of weapons.

But I can care less in terms what so ever.

Just want to make sure that every realizes a couple of things:

The XM8 has been, practically, scrapped.
The XM8 is a shiney, repackaged version of the G36 (although, to be frank, I prefer the organic lines and natural colors of the XM8 to the black, industrial appearance of the G36).
The Russian round that was designed to cause hydrodraulic shock is actually the AK-74's 5.45mm Russian. Given that "Spetsnaz" prefer the AKM to the AK-74, that should tell you something about how effective hydraulic shock is(n't).

After much thought, though, I think that I'd change the rifle I chose from the G3 to the M14, perhaps one of the new M14-based carbines that Springfield makes.

i would say i like the XM8 but guns that melt when they are fired for too long(and i mean not nearly as long as other weapons) and have other issues aren't worth using outside of a firing range. My personal favorite is the G36. same advantages as the M16 but more durable internal mechanisms.

One thing that most people should know about the M16 is that in order to function it requires meticulous cleaning to keep working. In the hands of a professional it is a good weapon but if you haven't fired it since basic training it's probably not gonna work so great.

AK-47>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mostly any conventional and non-explosive weaponry.

Yep, because CS is the most realistic simulation ever designed.
CS? :confused:

CS, more comonly known as "Counter Strike" a first person shooter video game.
Consequently Counter Strike does not provide any actuall bearing in terms of firearm factualities. In this game you can fire the .50 AE Desert Eagle at around 400 rounds per min, I have one of these pistols you would be lucky to get of 45 rounds per minute. Even less acuratly.

CS, more comonly known as "Counter Strike" a first person shooter video game.
Consequently Counter Strike does not provide any actuall bearing in terms of firearm factualities. In this game you can fire the .50 AE Desert Eagle at around 400 rounds per min, I have one of these pistols you would be lucky to get of 45 rounds per minute. Even less acuratly.
Ah. That makes sense. I was wondering how a Brit like TG was getting into shooking AKs....

no he chose g3 because it is a far better weapon then the g36...
How so?

Please guys the M16 has longer range. If your stuck in a trench heck go with the M16. Special Forces agree. You can pick off the others before they come close with AK's. Smarter choice even though they jam, that can be fixed. Sure Ak has a harder punch and takes rougher conditions but still the M16 has made it through plenty of wars and rough conditions. I take longer range because heck its a stupid idea to get close with either. If your stuck in the middle of the Middle east by yourself sure go with Ak for safety. But in choice SF agree M16/M4 go over any ak
Problem is that is negative warfare and i don't care much for it.

I would take the AK over the M-16 in most situations. Basically you have to think long term, sort of like you would in a zombie outbreak.

Kalashnivok designed the rifle to be the best utilitarian weapon conceived at the time. Designed to be field-durable and relatively easy to use and maintain. And it shows. It's not a Commie-Guerilla motif that makes AKs the assault rifle of choice across the world either; they know it works, parts and ammo are relatively plentiful and it's not the hardest weapon in the world to maintain.

And for those complaining about the classic design's inherent flaws, there's been a small surge of American gunsmiths who are making custom Kalashnikov-styled rifles with technological improvements added onto the venerable and durable design to make a helluva weapon:

Krebs Custom Guns

http://www.krebscustom.com/CustomRifleSuggestions.html

http://www.defensereview.com/article670.html

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/avtomat_080304/

The .223 Remington tumbles after 600 meters, thusly cripiling the M16.

I belive if we were to mix the Ak's reliabilty and the M16's light weight and its faster magazine reload time (I can reload my AK as fast as a trained individual on a M16, but not everyone is perfect) then chamber it in 6.8 SPC, one hell of a firearm would result.

I agree with Fascist Emirates on the AK. I own a Bulgarian Semi-Auto Ak-47 and a AR-15 (The civilian version of the M16) my Kalashnikov is just as accurate as its counter part. Ak inacuracy is most likely operator error.

The .223 Remington tumbles after 600 meters, thusly cripiling the M16.



WTF?!?!


We've been discussing battlefield ranges at under 200 meters.



you know that goes with the whole "Effective range" argument. With the M-16 its 550 meters

And the AK-47's effective range is 300 Meters.



so what the fuck does your above statement have to do with anything?

The problem I have with the M-16 is the bolt isn’t as reliable as the AK-47’s bolt is. If you take a squad light machine gun (we call it a C-9 up here in Canada, you call it a Saw or something else down in the US) and take the bolt out from that and turn it upside down, you’re looking at the bolt of an AK-47 (and you thought the Soviets did all the stealing in the Cold War). It’s one of the reasons the C-9 has such an effective bolt compared to the M-16, which is more prone to stoppages. The components of the AK-47 are much more durable too. The M-16 is prone to breaking from hard use and cracking in Arctic conditions (the Canada make their own M-16’s with longer barrels for increased accuracy and tougher stock components, to resist breakage and freezing better).

People can talk about effective range all they want, but the AK-47 is generally a better weapon (provided we’re not talking about some knock-off). Really though you should be comparing the M-16 to the AK-74 assault rifle that has been in use by Russia since 1974.