NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont think i need to explain this lol.

OOC: Should be in general...

woops lol okay.

da Chauchat was teh bestest gun ever. i saw it on future weapns and da host was all "it shoot beams of AMERICA POWER. DIE TERRERISTS DIE". so yah.

I concur

da Chauchat was teh bestest gun ever. i saw it on future weapns and da host was all "it shoot beams of AMERICA POWER. DIE TERRERISTS DIE". so yah.

well even tho it should be in general...the Ak-47 was more durable..than the m-16...and didnt have as many mechanical problems..so ya

I think that the Ak-47 is better, but better still is the AK-103, which is, basically, an AK-47 made out of polymers and plastic, making it far lighter (The AK-47's heaviness is the only real disadvantage to the M16).

I think it depends wether the guns are in the hands of pros or regular folks

when i first used a M-16 it was like shooting an automatic 22 i couldnt believe how easy it was to shoot, but it is harder to keep clean.

The heavier cartridge of an ak-47 is more like a deer rifle kick. Heavy and wood

I think that the Ak-47 is better, but better still is the AK-103, which is, basically, an AK-47 made out of polymers and plastic, making it far lighter (The AK-47's heaviness is the only real disadvantage to the M16).

I prefer the East German AK-47 but better still is the Russian AK-74M, basically its the same thing as thing as the -103 though...


EDIT: Kalashnikov Rifles are heavier than their Colt American counterparts (M-16..), but I have always found that they, unlike the bloody M-16, don't fall apart at the most inopportune moments...

Ahem.

The AR-15 bolt has 11 parts: Bolt, ejector, ejector spring, ejector spring pin, extractor, extractor spring, extractor spring cup, extractor spring pin, and the three gas rings (which like fouling and breaking). This not including the bolt lug and firing pin which in most rifles are part of the bolt.

The AK-47 bolt has 6 parts: Bolt, extractor, extractor spring, extractor pin, firing pin, firing pin retention pin (which acts to lock the other pin in as well). This in a package that is much, much more easily machined than the AR-15 bolt.

The AR-15 bolt carrier has 11 parts: Bolt carrier, bolt lug, firing pin, firing pin retention pin, gas key (completely separate machined part), two gas key screws, charging handle, charging handle latch, latch spring, latch pin. The gas key, of course in being more advanced, directs gas and fouling directly down into the interior of the bolt where it happily lives until it has to be cleaned.

The AK-47 bolt carrier has... 1 part: Itself. This includes what holds the actual bolt, the bolt lug (conveniently machined on the bolt) raceway, the recess for the recoil spring, and, oh yes, the charging handle. All machined in one part and much easier done than the very finely machined AR-15 bolt carrier, especially with the latter's assembly of fine grooves for the forward assist to indent upon.

The AR-15 forward assist has 8 parts: Plunger spring, forward assist pawl, forward assist stem, plunger spring pin, forward assist plunger, pawl detent, pawl detent spring, forward assist pawl pin. Plus its machined housing on the side of the upper receiver.

The AK-47 forward assist has 2 parts: A sturdy piece of machined metal on the side of the bolt carrier and an annoyed grunt hitting it forward.

The AR-15 recoil spring has 4 parts: Main spring, buffer detent, buffer detent spring, and the actual buffer... Which I won't touch since even *I* don't know how many parts are in it. There's at least one machined metal part and one plastic though.

The AK-47 recoil spring has 4 parts: Main spring, rear spring guide (which acts as a dust cover catch), forward spring guide, and the spring guide cap.

And these are just some of the major groupings of the working mechanism. We won't get into comparing the complexities of the AR-15 trigger group compared to the AK-47's or how insanely machined the former's two receiver halves have to be. The fact that without major redesign, the AR will always have a long metal tube sticking out of the rear of the receiver and can't ever have a folding stock while you can saw the AK's stock off for all it cares. Now, the AR-15 is more accurate compared to most AKs, but then again, the AK was designed as an assault rifle, not a "one shot, one kill" wonder weapon of the future trying to make every grunt a marksman.

Do I think the AK can be improved? Hell yes, it already has been by a lot of people. The Galil, the Tavor TAR-21, the FN FNC, the SAR-21, the Vector CR-21, all of the SIG rifles, all of the Russian rifles and armaments derived from it. Tell me how many modern rifles are being adopted and designed that use the AR-15's direct gas system and hugely over-complicated bolt. Most of them are going after the AR-18's much improved system; those rifles add up to a good amount. The AR-15 is a victim of its own propaganda and the American idea that whatever it has IS the biggest and best and the rest of the world has inferior technologically.

- Colt

I think that the Ak-47 is better, but better still is the AK-103, which is, basically, an AK-47 made out of polymers and plastic, making it far lighter (The AK-47's heaviness is the only real disadvantage to the M16).

The M-16 is considerably more accurate, particularly at range, then the AK. The AK's legendary ruggedness is a result of it being built with very low tolerances. It requires much less cleaning, but has inferior performace to the M-16. In addition the 5.56 NATO round is not only much lighter but has less recoil, allowing the soldier to carry more and maintain a higher rate of fire.
The 7.62 x 39mm does have slightly better stopping power at closer ranges, but both are FAR inferior to the 7.62 x 51mm NATO round.

This should be moved though.

First off: American technology usually has been at the fore front of military prowess, and is the reason for American military superiority today. Granted, many things can be improved and there are better substitutes in other militaries, but I for one believe that American equipment usually is superior to most other nations. In terms of which weapon is better, however, it simply comes down to which does the soldier prefer and what he can use better. If you're used to the M-16, than it's better: if you're used to the AK-47, than it's better.

Secondly: Isn't the Armalite AR-15 slightly different from the Colt M-16? At least, I believe so ...

Thirdly: Soviet military hardware will usually be seen as better than American because of one reason: cost. MiGs are easier and cheaper to produce than Lockheeds and McDonnell Douglass', Kalashnikovs are cheaper to produce than Colts, T-80s are easier and cheaper to produce than M1-Abrams, and so on. That's the only reason why many of the world's militaries use these weapons. Soviet-brand hardware, readily available on the black market and in other places, is just cheap, and therefore easy to mass produce and distribute in no time. American weaponry is usually better, but takes longer to produce and costs more.

Therefore, in terms of cost, availability, and durability, the AK is king, and probably will be for some time. In terms of ease of use and weight, you can't beat the Colt rifle, but then again, we see that the American military is changing the M-16 for better weaponry anyway, so perhaps the AK-47 is better, but is bound to be outdated by newer weaponry, such as the XM-8 BR, just as the M-16 has been.

Just my little 2 cents.

About being moved, if he posted it in general the chances of war-saavy folks such as those in II reading it would be a lot less so there is some reason for it being here but anyways..

I saw that thing on the discovery channel or w/e about the ak47 vs m16. Idk how accurate it was but it showed that the M16 was more accurate...by alot and the AK-47 was mroe powerful...by alot. Basically just a an old rifle shell cut short I think right? The bullet of an AK-47 can split a block of concrete lol.

XM-8 BR

XM-8 was canceled. Chauchat prevailz.

Both are very old, outdated weapons.

First off: American technology usually has been at the fore front of military prowess, and is the reason for American military superiority today.

Since when? Granted, today's American military equipment is some of the best, but that has not always been the case.

Thirdly: Soviet military hardware will usually be seen as better than American because of one reason: cost.

In this case the Ak-47 is also more reliable.

T-80s are easier and cheaper to produce than M1-Abrams

No they're not - they were just manufactured in larger numbers. In terms of armor the Soviet Union had a clear advantage between the 1960s and the fall of the Soviet Union - this had a lot to do with the fact that the United States was engulfed in Vietnam, however, but also has to do with Soviet ingenuity in armor design.

That's the only reason why many of the world's militaries use these weapons. Soviet-brand hardware, readily available on the black market and in other places, is just cheap, and therefore easy to mass produce and distribute in no time.

Russian equipment is picked now in nations that are historically pro-West because it's the equipment which delivers the most bang for the buck. Russian equipment is not dramatically inferior to American or European equipment.

This has been done to death, and belongs in the general forum, but I'll add two things to this discussion.
1.You have to define what you mean by best. The best one to beat someone over the head with? The best one to shoot someone wearing body armor from 400meters away with? The best one to spray down a cramped corridor at un armored guerrillas?
2. If the original Soviet 7.62x39mm AK-47 was so superior to the US 5.56x45mm M16, then why did the Soviets even bother inventing the 5.45x39mm AK-74 after observing the M16's performance in Vietnam?

A quick somewhat unbiased comparrission between the M-16, AK-47 and 'Other' (http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm)

In the end, there isn't much difference, except in intended use, they are both guns designed to be used at fairly close range by poorly trained troops.

(Yes, that includes the M-16, though the M-16 kept the 'rifleman' concept and decided to make it a flat shooter, while the soviets wanted something simple and still lethal out to a range greater than most SMGs [in this case the 7.62x25 mm PPSh-41], therefore the cartridge was a bit bigger [longer] for more powder [the 7.62x39 is essentailly a 7.62x51R bullet on a lengthened 7.62x25TT cartridge])

While 'other' is in comparrision to a 'battle' rifle (and an old one at that), which would also represent any indiginous NS design...

Rant start
It doesn't matter which you choose, so long as you know how to use it, use it well, and compensate for its shortcomings. So, [U]if you want a quick answer so you don't have to research this stuff, the answer is none, especially if you plan upon buying it yourself. Nothing is worse than an autoloading weapon in the hands of a person who doesn't know how to use it better than a 10 year old who never shot a firearm before [Blanks not included].

Nearly lost a friend because his younger brother mistook a loaded rifle in a hunting shack for a toy, the firing pin jammed...
Rant End

Since when? Granted, today's American military equipment is some of the best, but that has not always been the case.


Since 1775 when the Turtle (first military submarine) was built, the US has been on the forefront of military technology.

If you don't like that answer (since the turtle's mission failed), then since the US Civil war when, among other things, the first gating gun and revolvers came into large scale use by the military. And do I need to remind you of the first Ironclad warships?

Since 1775 when the Turtle (first military submarine) was built, the US has been on the forefront of military technology.

If you don't like that answer (since the turtle's mission failed), then since the US Civil war when, among other things, the first gating gun and revolvers came into large scale use by the military. And do I need to remind you of the first Ironclad warships?

None of those answers, unfortunately, gave the United States unanimous superiority in its weapons technology.

Since 1775 when the Turtle (first military submarine) was built, the US has been on the forefront of military technology.

If you don't like that answer (since the turtle's mission failed), then since the US Civil war when, among other things, the first gating gun and revolvers came into large scale use by the military. And do I need to remind you of the first Ironclad warships?

Need I remind you of the fact that the British invented the tank and the Germans invented guided rockets, nuclear bombs, and jet planes?

Just because the US invented some things does not give them carte blanche approval to declare themselves at the "forefront of military technology".

The answer is FN FAL.

Need I remind you of the fact that the British invented the tank and the Germans invented guided rockets, nuclear bombs, and jet planes?

Just because the US invented some things does not give them carte blanche approval to declare themselves at the "forefront of military technology".

Just because the US is at the forefront of technology in one aspect at one time, doesn't mean other nations aren't also at the forefront in other aspects of technology at the same or different times as well. And of course when a nation is at war, they are more likely to develop new military technology.

I think that the Ak-47 is better, but better still is the AK-103, which is, basically, an AK-47 made out of polymers and plastic, making it far lighter (The AK-47's heaviness is the only real disadvantage to the M16).

Both are very old, outdated weapons.

:sniper: ak47 when you absolutely positively gotaa kille everymther fucker in the room..acept no substitute..never jams.

XM-8 was canceled. Chauchat prevailz.

very good in the history of modern weapons the chauchaut was the very worst..it jammed

Just because the US is at the forefront of technology in one aspect at one time, doesn't mean other nations aren't also at the forefront in other aspects of technology at the same or different times as well.

Well, had you cared to read what we were replying to, maybe you'd prefer not to post.


First off: American technology usually has been at the fore front of military prowess

Well, had you cared to read what we were replying to, maybe you'd prefer not to post.

I fully agree with that statement. "American technology usually has been at the fore front of military prowess"

Need I remind you of the fact that the British invented the tank and the Germans invented guided rockets, nuclear bombs, and jet planes?

Just because the US invented some things does not give them carte blanche approval to declare themselves at the "forefront of military technology".

I must have missed the part of the history book where Germany built an atomic bomb. I think what you mean is that some German scientists were an intergal part of the American team that developed the atomic bomb.

It really doesn't matter who invented anything, it's who put them to better use. The Germans invented jets, but what is currently the most advanced aircraft in the world? The F-22.

The US can claim it has the most advanced weapons in the world because it does. Now that doesn't mean that it always has and that other countries don't have excellent weapons, but US military technology is unmatched at the present in terms of advancement.

In every era you can point to a time where American military technology was the most advanced at the time. The US civil war, the great white fleet, and once the US got involved,even World War II(The M1 Garand, the B-29, the nuke). Then of course during Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq there is no question that US technology was leading the way.

*too long a list to quote*
- Colt
And that is why, I personally, am voting for Kalashnikov's rifle, rather than Eugene Stoner's one.

Also, Colt, one could mention the AN and the AEK, both of which are little more than modified AK's..As is the AK-107/108, arguably the best of the 100 series.

Well the old M-16 had to have it's trigger replaced after a few thousand rounds because it was made of lead and broke, their slightly more accurate and have slightly better range than an AK, but aren't as effective in close suppression. Also M-16 never had great quality if you get me, throw an AK in some sand for a few month and get it out, throw a magazine in and she works fine, an M16 wouldn't last a few days in those conditions, M16's are fine assault rifles, for for those endurance issues their crap, the US military just figures it's better to resupply with new rifles after their break rather than have rifles that last for lifetimes. US troops encountered such problems in Vietnam with the M16 too, the Australians used to hide themselves and their Springfield's at night in scrub etc, and the Americans had great weapon problems with jamming etc.

I fully agree with that statement. "American technology usually has been at the fore front of military prowess"

But, it hasn't.

American propoganda...

M1 Garand Vs StG-44...
M1A1 vs PPSh-41...

RPG-7 around the corner vs HMMVW...

In every era you can point to a time where American military technology was the most advanced at the time.

No, not really.

The US civil war,

Of course! The U.S. was more advanced than .... the U.S.?

even World War II(The M1 Garand, the B-29, the nuke).

Those are not the only technologies which were developed/used during the Second World War, unfortunately, so prove nothing. The Germans were ahead in small arms development [StG 44], armor development [their late war designs which could not be completed were amazing], electronic equipment [rangefinders especially], submarine technology, et cetera. The Soviets were ahead in armor development. The United States was industrially superior, but not technologically.

Then of course during Korea,

The United States was not technologically superior. It had superior training and leadership, logistics and industrial capacity.

Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq there is no question that US technology was leading the way.

Yea, it's not too difficult to be technologically superior to 3rd World nations. ;)

Of course! The U.S. was more advanced than .... the U.S.?

Well, duh. If the US wasn't more advanced then the US, the US might be more advanced then the US!

Also, given my lack of firearm training, if I had to choose between one or the other, I'd pick the AK. Remember: KISS.

Well, duh. If the US wasn't more advanced then the US, the US might be more advanced then the US!

Also, given my lack of firearm training, if I had to choose between one or the other, I'd pick the AK. Remember: KISS.
Indeed. Hell, I know I could fire one, even though I have never shot a automatic rifle in my life (only fired a gun once, and it was a Nagant)

And I'm fairly sure that given half a hour I could field strip it, using only my bare hands..Can you say the same for the m-16? Hardly.

Well, I think that it should be mostly should be an AK74 v. M16 discussion.

Either way they are both shit guns.

It was the US vs the CS.

F-86 > MiG-15

In the first Gulf War, Iraq had the 4th largest army with the elite, battle hardened "Republican Guard" and modern soviet equipment on their side. It was destroyed by the US led coaliton in 30 days with less than 400 deaths and under 2,000 wounded on the US side.

Back on topic
The M-16 can be field stripped without tools in under a minute. Even if you have never even seen one, I'd bet you'd figure it out in under 10 minutes.
Also the AK-47's recoil would be too much for a new shooter to fire accurately, which is why you see the African rebels on tv shooting AK's from the hip.
The M-16 could be fired easily and accurately by a teenager or woman.

Back on topic
The M-16 can be field stripped without tools in under a minute. Even if you have never even seen one, I'd bet you'd figure it out in under 10 minutes.
Also the AK-47's recoil would be too much for a new shooter to fire accurately, which is why you see the African rebels on tv shooting AK's from the hip.
The M-16 could be fired easily and accurately by a teenager or woman.


The M16 is not a simple weapon to take apart and fully clean, regardless of what anyone says. The AK-47 will literally fall apart when you take the bolt out for cleaning and that's a GOOD thing. Did everyone completely skip over my post counting the PART NUMBERS involved with these different rifles? The Damn M16 has seven parts for what the AK-47 does with a hunk of metal machined onto the side of the bolt carrier. And this isn't even counting the four parts or so (plus extra machining) that are involved in that magical T-type bolt retractor. Sure, the handle doesn't move while firing, but you just added a bunch of parts you didn't need entirely.

Also, just so everyone knows, The AR-15 IS the M16, the M16 simply has a different trigger group for burst or automatic fire. Engineers classify weapons by their original actions, not what someone else feels like calling them. And no, M16 has no hyphen. - Colt

...The French built the first ironclads.

The M-16 could be fired easily and accurately by a teenager or woman.

And the AK can't? I'm 17 and I've fired heavier cartridges then 7.62x39mm.

When I play Counter Strike, I use the Maverick, which looks like an M-16.

In the first Gulf War, Iraq had the 4th largest army with the elite, battle hardened "Republican Guard" and modern soviet equipment on their side. It was destroyed by the US led coaliton in 30 days with less than 400 deaths and under 2,000 wounded on the US side.

Iraq didn't have long range strategic bombers, carrier battle groups, nor did it have the advantage of not being involved in an economically shattering war with Iran for the last what, 10 years?

Also, they weren't in the business of having new weapons and equipment manufactured locally and troops being trained out of range of enemy weapons.

Try your scenario again with say, Soviet troops pouring into New York, the industrial areas in Detroit and elsewhere suffering from heavy bombing and then we'll talk about who's got better gear.

And no nukes. That's just cheating.

When I play Counter Strike, I use the Maverick, which looks like an M-16.

The M4 and AK in CS are uselessly inaccurate, the best weapons imo are the AUG Steyr and IDF Defender.

...The French built the first ironclads.



And the AK can't? I'm 17 and I've fired heavier cartridges then 7.62x39mm.
1 The La Gloire, like the CSS Virgina (aka Merrimack) was not a real, built from the keel up ironclad. (Both the La Gloire and the Virgina, were built like wooden sailing ships with metal added) The USS monitor was the first real iron clad as well as the first semi-submersible ship.

2 No. The AK-47s imprecise construction and powerful full auto recoil is too large an obstacle for a new shooter to overcome as quickly as with they can with the burst fire, and very low recoil M16. There is no way a new shooter who is given an AK-47 will be as accurate as another new shooter who is given an M16 or AR-15 variant.
And by teenager I really meant "soldiers" like these:
http://www.stolenchildhood.net/images/drc_children_congolese_child_soldiers_congo_child_fighters.jpg


And I'm fairly sure that given half a hour I could field strip it, using only my bare hands..Can you say the same for the m-16? Hardly.
And FYI, I was responding to that.

It was the US vs the CS.

F-86 > MiG-15

In the first Gulf War, Iraq had the 4th largest army with the elite, battle hardened "Republican Guard" and modern soviet equipment on their side. It was destroyed by the US led coaliton in 30 days with less than 400 deaths and under 2,000 wounded on the US side.


Air support is what did Iraq in, their supply routes were destroyed by strategic bombers are their heavy equipment and armor was destroyed, plus the Iraqi army was in a terrible shape when they invaded Kuwait because of being beaten back by the Iranians and being at war with them for 8 years, most just surrendered outright after the bombing campaigns by the US.

Phenoix, i have a child military group called the Revolutionary youth, just like that, but were white and black. lol

YA AK-47 DOMINATES!

The Iraqis had Tu-22s which could have hit any US base in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy etc. They also had Mach 2.8 Mig-25 Foxbat fighters, faster than anything the US had at the time, and they got splashed by F/A-18s which has a max speed which is a full Mach number slower. They also had modern MiG-29s so its silly to act like they had no fight to put up. The simple fact is that American technology was better and there was more of it. Even if most of their airforce didn't run away, they would have been destroyed by US air power.


So because the US used airpower against the 4th largest military (which had a capable airforce), the victory in the Gulf War and the effectiveness of US technology is marginalized?

Depends on the situation, though I voted M16.

The M16 has almost twice the range of the AKM (the actual name of the AK 47), is incredibly accurate, modifiable and at the combat ranges experienced in modern war the 5.56 NATO rounds has far better ballistics than any of the three major 7.62 rounds (7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 7.62x54) on tissue though is inferior on things like cinder blocks. However, it also uses a mechanism that is far easier to dirty (though the AR 10 is proof that direct gas impingement can be remarkably reliable in adverse conditions).

The AKM has a remarkably robust and simple mechanism that is so reliable it seems like you could fire the rifle even if it was fully field stripped. It shoots the 7.62S (7.62x39) which is pretty much a cut down rifle round. The .30 caliber round will tear though just about anything without much of an effect on the bullet it's self, however, it's also heavy and relatively slow so it's high arc makes it pretty much useless beyond 300 yards from an AKM and about 400 yards from an SKS.

The M16 is closer to a rifle (single well placed shots) and the AKM is closer to an SMG (spray and pray). You could also say the M16 is intended for western armies (highly trained, small numbers) vs. the AKM which is for conscript armies and gorillas (poorly trained, large numbers or the ability to disappear). This isn't a knock on the AKM, it does what it's supposed to and I don't think there's a rifle that could be designed to do it better. I'm just illustrating the difference between the the rifles and by extension the people/tactics that use them.

I think it depends wether the guns are in the hands of pros or regular folks

when i first used a M-16 it was like shooting an automatic 22 i couldnt believe how easy it was to shoot, but it is harder to keep clean.

The heavier cartridge of an ak-47 is more like a deer rifle kick. Heavy and wood

if you think an ak kicks..you must be female...lol...just kidding...kids shoot em just fine.
i will take an ak thank you....i have both,the ar is more accurate but more fragile....so go pick one when the shtf

The Iraqis had Tu-22s which could have hit any US base in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy etc.


Let me know when said Tu-22s can bomb US industrial facilities from Iraqi airbases.

Also, you ignore the fact that the Republican Guard just faced an 8 year war with Iran, and was in the process of occupying Kuwait.

To make equal comparisons, Russia would have to invade the US just as US forces have begun moving into Iran. And all of US's allies have deserted it.

That would be an equal comparison.

Ehm. You can fieldstrip an AK in half-an-hour?

And that's it? In IDF training, non-combat recruits (i.e. future clerks and other REMFs) have to field-strip their Galils (read: shiny AK's) and M16's in under 90 seconds or they fail BT.

Ehm. You can fieldstrip an AK in half-an-hour?

And that's it? In IDF training, non-combat recruits (i.e. future clerks and other REMFs) have to field-strip their Galils (read: shiny AK's) and M16's in under 90 seconds or they fail BT.

I think he means without familiarity or training in field stripping weapons.

I think it depends... if we are talking about just the M-16 original then yes I would say the AK-47 is better, its also one of the most highly marketed weapons in the world, Nicholas Cage's character in Lord of War said it was his favorite.

If you are talking about the M-16A2 or the M-14AR1 Carbine... both are far superior in range and penetration but with less stopping power then the AK-47and in my opinion make better weapons in the hands of trained soldiers. The AK-47 rarely jams, is durable, and rugged and in the hands of your average guerilla is probably the best.

Pfft, my man-portable rail guns will pwn your foolish AK47s and M16s.

OK - well let's take a look at this from two perspectives -

1) Actual AKM (or AK-47, makes no real odds) vs. M16 (A1 assumed, closer in terms of time)

Pros of the AKM :

- Amazing reliability
- Reliably good killing power
- Bigger magazine
- Pretty much idiot-proof

Cons of the AKM :

- Not as accurate as the M16
- Weapon a bit heavier, ammunition almost twice as heavy
- Shorter range but longer weapon size than the M16
- Ergonomically pretty poor, really

vs.

Pros of the M16 :

- Light
- Pretty accurate
- Calibre has good flight qualities

Cons of the M16 :

- Only a 20rd. magazine
- Doesn't sound as manly as an AK47 (important!)
- Claims of "self cleaning capacity" were rubbish.
- Not quite as powerful as the AK47



Modern Versions :

RK95TP : A Finnish AK47 copy, widely considered the best version.

Pros :

- It's amazingly excellent in almost every way.

Cons :

- Essentially none. Maybe could do with burst-fire. That's about it.


Diemaco C8 : It's the best version of the M16, really

Pros :

- Very, very accurate.
- More powerful than the original M16
- Excellent for upgrading and such

Cons :

- Still less powerful than a 7.62x39 weapon
- Still not that reliable

I think he means without familiarity or training in field stripping weapons.
*hands Non Aligned States a cookie*
Never field stripped anything in my life. If I was familiar with the design, I'm sure I could do it in no time flat..(and yes, it was I who said that)

Both are very old, outdated weapons.
True. The best old weapon around is the M-14. I know this is out of scope, but the discussion on the bolts above got me to thinking how superior a weapon would be that had a light weight stock and barrel, but a Garand-type action that could be magazine fed. A modern M-14 would be the result.

True. The best old weapon around is the M-14. I know this is out of scope, but the discussion on the bolts above got me to thinking how superior a weapon would be that had a light weight stock and barrel, but a Garand-type action that could be magazine fed. A modern M-14 would be the result.
The SEALs still use the M14 as their battle rifle, don't they?

Oh and the best old weapon around is easily the Browning HMG if we're talking in any class.

The SEALs still use the M14 as their battle rifle, don't they?

Oh and the best old weapon around is easily the Browning HMG if we're talking in any class.

HMG-42.... 1,200 round cyclic rate and .50 cal rounds.... like a long range chainsaw!

I'm surprised the BAR-1918 isn't classed as an assault rifle, it has all the same features as early AR models like the german KR-98 which was supposedly the very first one...

Oh... and SEALS as well as other American Spec ops use a wide variety of weapons but the most common is a derivative of the M-16A2 known as the SOPMOD. At thier level however they are cross trained with a rediculous amount of firepower and explosives and are able to choose as they want for the most part to my knowledge.

AK, easy.

1. The M-16 has overcome its reliability problems a long time ago.
2. It is usually fitted with sights that cannot be fitted to an AK - giving it a substantial advantage in accuracy, even when fired quickly. The typical infantryman can quickly pop soda cans with it at 200 yards, even after the sun goes down, as long as a target can be spotted (using the ACOG or similar sights).
3. The 5.56mm is more lethal than the 7.62x39mm round.

That said, the M-16 series is at the end of its technological progression, and a newer weapon (perhaps the HK variant with its gas piston) will replace it.

Your knowledge, or lack thereof could be remedied with a simple google search.

its the SOPMOD package of the M4 carbine, not the M16A2...
The M-14 and special variants of it is used today as a designated marksman's rifle by the marines, the army and the seals, but its being replaced by other newer weapons systems such as Eugene Stoner(M16 designer)'s SR-25 (Mk 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System )

Your knowledge, or lack thereof could be remedied with a simple google search.

its the SOPMOD package of the M4 carbine, not the M16A2...
The M-14 and special variants of it is used today as a designated marksman's rifle by the marines, the army and the seals, but its being replaced by other newer weapons systems such as Eugene Stoner(M16 designer)'s SR-25 (Mk 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System )

I never claimed that I was always right. But the M4 Carbine is derived from the AR-15/M-16A2 design in an almost sub machinegun sized package.

1. The M-16 has overcome its reliability problems a long time ago.
2. It is usually fitted with sights that cannot be fitted to an AK - giving it a substantial advantage in accuracy, even when fired quickly. The typical infantryman can quickly pop soda cans with it at 200 yards, even after the sun goes down, as long as a target can be spotted (using the ACOG or similar sights).
3. The 5.56mm is more lethal than the 7.62x39mm round.

That said, the M-16 series is at the end of its technological progression, and a newer weapon (perhaps the HK variant with its gas piston) will replace it.
That the round is more lethal has a corollary to it. It's a smaller and lighter round, so one can carry far more ammo than they could if they were using the 30 cal round.

One thing I discovered in my short stint fighting with the infantry is that more ammo is always better.

Same thing about gas and airplanes...

:fluffle: cant every one just get along who needs guns

(The AK-47's heaviness is the only real disadvantage to the M16).

Which is a rather huge disadvantage...

Both kill
Both kill fast
If you run out of bullets in a war with either your royaly #@%^ed.

:fluffle: cant every one just get along who needs guns

'Cause stabbing and punching are rude and uncivilized.

I dont think i need to explain this lol.

Actually, yes, you do. You need to define what you mean by better.

A quick somewhat unbiased comparrission between the M-16, AK-47 and 'Other' (http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm)

Heh. Good one.

In the end, there isn't much difference, except in intended use, they are both guns designed to be used at fairly close range by poorly trained troops.

(Yes, that includes the M-16, though the M-16 kept the 'rifleman' concept and decided to make it a flat shooter, while the soviets wanted something simple and still lethal out to a range greater than most SMGs [in this case the 7.62x25 mm PPSh-41], therefore the cartridge was a bit bigger [longer] for more powder [the 7.62x39 is essentailly a 7.62x51R bullet on a lengthened 7.62x25TT cartridge])

While 'other' is in comparrision to a 'battle' rifle (and an old one at that), which would also represent any indiginous NS design...

Rant start
It doesn't matter which you choose, so long as you know how to use it, use it well, and compensate for its shortcomings. So, [U]if you want a quick answer so you don't have to research this stuff, the answer is none, especially if you plan upon buying it yourself. Nothing is worse than an autoloading weapon in the hands of a person who doesn't know how to use it better than a 10 year old who never shot a firearm before .

Indeed, indeed.

the Germans invented guided rockets, [B]nuclear bombs, and jet planes?

:confused:

Err... NO!

I must have missed the part of the history book where Germany built an atomic bomb. I think what you mean is that some German scientists were an intergal part of the American team that developed the atomic bomb.

Actually, I think he's toking that drug called Anti-Americana.

Indeed. Hell, I know I could fire one, even though I have never shot a automatic rifle in my life (only fired a gun once, and it was a Nagant)

And I'm fairly sure that given half a hour I could field strip it, using only my bare hands..Can you say the same for the m-16? Hardly.

Hmmm... I am doubtful.

Mosin-nagant owns all bitches. (http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm)

Mosin-nagant owns all bitches. (http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm)

Thank you for posting the exact same link I used on the last page...
(It even got itself quoted)

These people just keep coming out of the woodwork don't they?
(Reffering to the 'Which is better' threads that pop up from time to time, and the spam it attracts, and hence, server downtime and angry people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA)*)

*had to shed a tear for that abused computer... Chances are he even overclocked it and has fried half the processor by now... So, please, don't give death threats to your computer, it can hear you just fine, and knows it can hurt you more than you can hurt it...

Steyr Aug ^^

During the Vietnam era and throughout the Cold War, the AK-47 was superior. Newer versions of the M-16 are better than the current versions of the AK though.

The M-16 and derivatives of it are more verastile and can have many tools attached to them that make them a superior weapon. Besides, the AK-74's release shows that the Russians have realized that 5.56mm is better than 7.62 because of the higher muzzle velocity and accuracy.

During the Vietnam era and throughout the Cold War, the AK-47 was superior. Newer versions of the M-16 are better than the current versions of the AK though.

The M-16 and derivatives of it are more verastile and can have many tools attached to them that make them a superior weapon. Besides, the AK-74's release shows that the Russians have realized that 5.56mm is better than 7.62 because of the higher muzzle velocity and accuracy.

I thought you were gonna say the Galil, hence your name.

Anyway, it seems to me the AK-74 is probably the best assault rifle since it has the durability of the AK and the lethality of the M16.

I thought you were gonna say the Galil, hence your name.

Anyway, it seems to me the AK-74 is probably the best assault rifle since it has the durability of the AK and the lethality of the M16.

And none of the accuracy, and in its issue form, none of the modularity.

AK-47 is teh cooler.....

It's more popular too....

remains the most widely used and known. More AK rifles have been produced than any other assault rifle; production continues to this day.

AK-47 is teh cooler.....

It's more popular too....

If we're about 200 yards apart, and I have the M-16, you won't think it's teh cooler.

AK-47 - Simple, forever reliable, stopping power/mildly accurate, minimal range

M-16 - Accurate, long range, devastating ballistics/complex, unreliable in comparison

AK-47 wins, you could take one week to teach someone to field strip and use an M-16 reliable, but an AK might take 4 hours and there is almost no instruction needed on how to use it. Will never stop firing in any conditions. Also very simple and cheap to manufacture.

AK-47 - Simple, forever reliable, stopping power/mildly accurate, minimal range

M-16 - Accurate, long range, devastating ballistics/complex, unreliable in comparison

AK-47 wins, you could take one week to teach someone to field strip and use an M-16 reliable, but an AK might take 4 hours and there is almost no instruction needed on how to use it. Will never stop firing in any conditions. Also very simple and cheap to manufacture.

The M-16 is easier to disassemble and assemble. Have you ever seen both?

Yes I have seen both, and an M-16 isn't going to be able to be field stripped and cleaned and put back together as easily as an AK. An M-16 needs to be cleaned but an AK does not.

Yes I have seen both, and an M-16 isn't going to be able to be field stripped and cleaned and put back together as easily as an AK. An M-16 needs to be cleaned but an AK does not.

The M-16 does not have to be cleaned as much as it used to.

An AK still has to be cleaned from time to time. Just because it uses a gas piston instead of gas impingement doesn't mean it never needs to be cleaned.

Also, the M-16 has far fewer parts, and is much easier to take apart and reassemble.

If we're about 200 yards apart, and I have the M-16, you won't think it's teh cooler.

by "teh cooler" I mean it looks cooler.....who cares about effectiveness :p

by "teh cooler" I mean it looks cooler.....who cares about effectiveness :p

Well, you're right. Dead people don't care about effectiveness.

I've got an AR-15, so I have to vote for its big brother, the M16. :D

I thought you were gonna say the Galil, hence your name.

Anyway, it seems to me the AK-74 is probably the best assault rifle since it has the durability of the AK and the lethality of the M16.

The AK74 uses a 5.45x39 round with a hollow point so it yaws earlier than it normally would, it still says as a solid mass though. At the time it was thought that the power of the 5.56 rounds came from extreme yawing of the round, this is untrue but I'll talk about that in a minute. Anyway, ballistic tests done on pigs found that 5.45 was about equivalent in power to a pistol round.

When 5.56 hits soft tissue and begins to tumble it has a tenancy (one that can be counted on to about 200 yards from a 20 inch barrel) to snap in half and fragment throughout the target creating on average about a 6 inch wound that can cause a man to bleed out in a matter of minutes.

And just to try and convince people the 7.62x39 is not anywhere near as powerful as the 5.56 I'll cover 7.62 ballistics too.

All of the major 7.62s operate on the exact same principals, just with different weights and pressures. The principal is simple, a spitzer type bullet (where the nose is lighter than the rest of the bullet) will tumble. While this improves aerodynamic efficiency and ballistics over the original rounded nose rounds the 7.62 caliber rounds is too large and slow to fragment like the 5.56 so it goes through the target. Anyone who has ever had to shoot at someone will tell you the last thing you want is wasted energy and all of the 7.62s have that in spades.

Can people please stop saying that the AK is more powerful now?

I dont think i need to explain this lol.
Of those two, Ak-47.

If I had a free choice, I'd pick the HK G36, though.

If we're about 200 yards apart, and I have the M-16, you won't think it's teh cooler.

I get about 1.5 MOA at 200 yds w/ mine.

I get about 1.5 MOA at 200 yds w/ mine.

I need to start shooting those high power matches again. I'm mostly a 8,9,10 ring shooter at 200 and 300. I spray the hits out to the 6 and 7 rings when we go to 600 yards. I think I need to load heavier bullets, but I haven't tried anything heavier than a 69 grain bullet.

I need to start shooting those high power matches again. I'm mostly a 8,9,10 ring shooter at 200 and 300. I spray the hits out to the 6 and 7 rings when we go to 600 yards. I think I need to load heavier bullets, but I haven't tried anything heavier than a 69 grain bullet.

I'm not even that good of a shooter and I use cheap ass ammo. For the most part, the accuracy between the two only comes into play past 300m and since the standard training distance is 300m, it's less of an issue anyway.

I'm not even that good of a shooter and I use cheap ass ammo. For the most part, the accuracy between the two only comes into play past 300m and since the standard training distance is 300m, it's less of an issue anyway.
That's when I practice regularly. Otherwise, I'm lucky to hit the black at 100 yards.
I don't know what they do now, but we always had to shoot at the 500 yard line in the Marines. I hated the 300 yard line because the KD course only allowed rapid-fire sitting at that distance. My absolute worst position.

True. The best old weapon around is the M-14. I know this is out of scope, but the discussion on the bolts above got me to thinking how superior a weapon would be that had a light weight stock and barrel, but a Garand-type action that could be magazine fed. A modern M-14 would be the result.

I've not handled one myself, so I don't know what they weigh, but M14 EBRs and Troy industries SOPMOD m14s both have telescoping stocks and are made from modern materials, so they might fit the bill.

http://www.americandefensesystems.net/images/spot_gun03.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/shotshow2006/large/SS06-201.jpg

That's when I practice regularly. Otherwise, I'm lucky to hit the black at 100 yards.
I don't know what they do now, but we always had to shoot at the 500 yard line in the Marines. I hated the 300 yard line because the KD course only allowed rapid-fire sitting at that distance. My absolute worst position.

Army standard is 300yds going in at 50 yd increments. They've just changed the positions to prone and sitting/crouch from prone and foxhole.

Not to be late to the party, but...

Having had three teachers, an uncle and a cousin who were in Vietnam fighting for the US Army and USMC at various times, the general consensus is that the AK-47 is a better weapon overall.

Not to be late to the party, but...

Having had three teachers, an uncle and a cousin who were in Vietnam fighting for the US Army and USMC at various times, the general consensus is that the AK-47 is a better weapon overall.

This is true. The first M16 A1s were plagued with problems that were in no way the soldiers faults. The problems ranged from switching from stick powder to ball which improved velocity but was far dirtier. Non chrome-lined barrels (McNamara figured if the original AR15 didn't have it then the M16 shouldn't). And the claim the rifle was self cleaning so that no cleaning kits were sent with the rifles. This might have been true for the stick powder but not the ball.

The M16s of today (M16A2 and M16A4) are vastly improved in every way.