NationStates Jolt Archive

While I am not the most fond of the M16 I will admit that is a fairly relyable gun and that it is all in all easy to maintain. the ak is most definetly a reliable gun and contrary to many peoples....misguided opinions is a very acurate gunwhen properly maintained it doese however not have the same accuracy at longer ranges that the m16 does. it makes up for this in its fully auto or semi auto fire. the m16 suffers in cqb becauses of its lack of close quarters capabilities. ie three round burst. this being said which do you feel is the better weapon?

In what case?

AKs are more reliable in current theaters of warfare because it's cheap, easy to maintain and ammo availability.

5.56s are hard to come-by.

In a case of strictly which is the better rifle... I'd say the M16 (after some modifications though, the first ones were terrible in Vietnam).

Depends on the situation, as do most "Favourite" topics.

The M16 (or another gun) would win if you wanted to set up a trained fighting force, but for shear cheap, getting troops on the street, the AK-47 has to win.

true the m16 is a good mid to long range weapon but as I said it suffers from lack of cqb capabilities. this poeses a problem when clearing rooms and no amout of modification can compensate for a bad bolt and upperreciever design.

Again???

If you read German: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/zeitgeschichte/0,1518,493106,00.html

Depends on the situation, as do most "Favourite" topics.

The M16 (or another gun) would win if you wanted to set up a trained fighting force, but for shear cheap, getting troops on the street, the AK-47 has to win.

I have been trained with the m16 and I own an ar15. I also own a ak and yes if you give a well trained military group the m16 you have an exclent fighting force. how ever the same can be said about the ak

true the m16 is a good mid to long range weapon but as I said it suffers from lack of cqb capabilities. this poeses a problem when clearing rooms and no amout of modification can compensate for a bad bolt and upperreciever design.

I don't think that it was ever designed for cqb,... who even thought about close quarter battles at that time?

I have been trained with the m16 and I own an ar15. I also own a ak and yes if you give a well trained military group the m16 you have an exclent fighting force. how ever the same can be said about the ak

Please seek training in grammar and spelling as well as with the M16

Again???

If you read German: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/zeitgeschichte/0,1518,493106,00.html

Intersting but all i got from that was that there are an awul lot of aks in production and that it is a fairly good gun it did nothing to prove or disprove its.....superiority

Please seek training in grammar and spelling as well as with the M16

I am not paid by the usmc to bee a grammer teacher nor am I expected to be the best speller

I am not paid by the usmc to bee a grammer teacher nor am I expected to be the best speller

Wow that makes me feel so much better about the military

I don't think that it was ever designed for cqb,... who even thought about close quarter battles at that time?

hue city, dau nog (I know I butchered both those names.) but true it was first designed to support snipers but took the roll as an assult rifle

Wow that makes me feel so much better about the military

Ok so I'm going to stand up in the middle of a fire fight and correct some ragheads grammer? or maybe a fellow letherneck?

Id take an AK close up.
M16 if i wanted something closer to a rifle.

Anything 200 yards away an AK would have problems touching it.
Wheras its devastating in CQC

That depends. The M4 could be considered a mix of the both weapons from what I understand it to be. I'm not sure what to vote for.

Ok so I'm going to stand up in the middle of a fire fight and correct some ragheads grammer? or maybe a fellow letherneck?

There has to be more to being a soldier than shooting at things. Don't you think that decent grammar would make it easier to communicate with your fellow leathernecks?

But on topic:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/65/Bfg9000sprite.gif>all

Id take an AK close up.
M16 if i wanted something closer to a rifle.

Anything 200 yards away an AK would have problems touching it.
Wheras its devastating in CQC

350 yards actuatly I can make almost the same shot grouping with my ak at 200 as I can with my ar15 however at ranges greater then about 300 yards my accuracy begins to suffer a good bit

That depends. The M4 could be considered a mix of the both weapons from what I understand it to be. I'm not sure what to vote for.

While it has an exclent cqb it is closer to the m16a1 in a smaller package then an ak47 m16 cross.

There has to be more to being a soldier than shooting at things. Don't you think that decent grammar would make it easier to communicate with your fellow leathernecks?

But on topic:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/65/Bfg9000sprite.gif>all

thats why I have a grammer and spell checker so forgive the highschool drop out

The AK-47 Kalashnikov IS the most popular assault rifle in the world. The Majority of countries currently in conflict use the AK-47 and/or weapons in it's family. The famous weapon has even made it onto flags and emblems of countries. This amazing reliable, powerful, and striking rifle has withstanded time and was the official standard rifle for the Russian Army untill the AN-94 replaced the Kalashnikov in 93'

Because of It's popularity the 7.62x39mm rifle round is the most common in the world. On battle feild you are bound to find ammo for this weapon. Durablity, Stability, Power, Range, and near impossible ability to fire under extreme circumstances makes this weapon a prime contender, even when facing weapons of the 21st century.

With it's NATO Five-Five-Sixers, the Black Rifle varients around the world are gaining popularity. However, their lesser firepower coupled with a fragial frame does not complement the weapon in extreme jungle and desert enviorments. It's long body, and high maintanace make the M-16 a prime weapon for urban S.W.A.T. actions. The only thing the M-16 has that the Ak-47 does not, is almost no recoil and mussle jump.

[ No Matter Which weapon is in hand, all guns fail to function, jam, and are innaccurate if the user is not properly trained with the said wepon ]



:sniper: <--- PSG-1 Nice! gotta love Heckler & Koch

well currently the M16 and the AK-47 are obsolete by about 30 years so other would be the best choice (most likely the A2 for reasons beyond the fact that its British made;))

Ok so I'm going to stand up in the middle of a fire fight and correct some ragheads grammer? or maybe a fellow letherneck?

oh look an ignorant US marine with poor grammar! who would of thought such a thing was possible :rolleyes:

Ok so I'm going to stand up in the middle of a fire fight and correct some ragheads grammer? or maybe a fellow letherneck?
No, but one day you'll be an NCO and possible a SNCO. Then you'll be expected to be able to communicate effectively in written documents. Remember, train like you fight and fight like you train works for garrison stuff, too.

I retired out of the Marine Corps Reserves as a Lieutenant Colonel and in those twenty years I didn't run across too many SNCOs that couldn't write a decent paragraph.

Semper Fi, Marine.

The AK-47 Kalashnikov IS the most popular assault rifle in the world. The Majority of countries currently in conflict use the AK-47 and/or weapons in it's family. The famous weapon has even made it onto flags and emblems of countries. This amazing reliable, powerful, and striking rifle has withstanded time and was the official standard rifle for the Russian Army untill the AN-94 replaced the Kalashnikov in 93'


Most popular because it's cheap and distributed without all the red tape that the M-16 and variants have? Probably...

And I'd rather have a thousand cheap rifles than a hundred quality ones.

Most popular because it's cheap and distributed without all the red tape that the M-16 and variants have? Probably...

And I'd rather have a thousand cheap rifles than a hundred quality ones.

That's why the saying goes. "No matter how many people want to hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya, there's always one guy off in a corner polishing his AK-47." But I never knew about flags and emblems with AKs on them.

well currently the M16 and the AK-47 are obsolete by about 30 years so other would be the best choice (most likely the A2 for reasons beyond the fact that its British made;))


I have lost faith in all next-gen rifles today. They are all horrible. The XM8E1 is a peice of plastic crap, and "metal force" weapons systems are electronic, and I can't imagine anyone trusting their life to a digital gun, especially around water.

The best contender for a rifle right now would be the Hk-416 . Heckler & Koch are known for re-producing famous weapons ( ONLY WITHOUT ANY OF THEIR PROBLEMS ) the Hk-416 is an M4 varient with a more venting frame and a wider selective fire mode. It's also more accurate and has a longer range. And of course, as all Hk rifles, it is loaded with rails so it is completly modular...

Personally I think we should bring back the NATO 7.62x59mm of the M-14 and make it into a modular medium to long range assault rilfe. That would look pretty cool, and could actually shoot thru things.

Personally I think we should bring back the NATO 7.62x59mm of the M-14 and make it into a modular medium to long range assault rilfe. That would look pretty cool, and could actually shoot thru things.

It's too heavy. Even with a synthetic stock, the thing weighs a ton. And the ammo is heavy, too. M-16s will shoot through a concrete wall. The ammo is lighter -- you can carry more and that's important in combat. If anything, soldiers and Marines need to start aiming again. It worked wonders with the Springfield and the Garand. I have no doubt a fire team armed with M-16s and some sort of full-auto weapon would be very deadly.

While I am not the most fond of the M16 I will admit that is a fairly relyable gun and that it is all in all easy to maintain. the ak is most definetly a reliable gun and contrary to many peoples....misguided opinions is a very acurate gunwhen properly maintained it doese however not have the same accuracy at longer ranges that the m16 does. it makes up for this in its fully auto or semi auto fire. the m16 suffers in cqb becauses of its lack of close quarters capabilities. ie three round burst. this being said which do you feel is the better weapon?

i have both,non military versions,but it really depends on the arena of combat.some say that the ak is better for cqb,but i dissagree.
the 5.56 is very destructive at all ranges due to it's light weight and instability.that is after all why the military procured it and went the smaller round.i have seen the wound ballistic tests that the gov did,and it creates very incapacitating wounds.
the ak,like the previously used m-1a,uses a solid ,heavier and larger diameter bullet.this tends to punch thru tissue in an in and out wound.yes if it hits a vital organ,then game over,but non vital hits tend to go thru and shock alone can keep the combatant in the fight.
i like both,but if i was in an urban situation i would go with a sbr style ar,i can carry more ammo for weight,and it is very light and pointable.
the ak would seem the better choice for situations involving wooded areas,or people that are behind cover,at fifty meters my ak(bulgy sa-93) will punch threw a brick like it is paper.
in longer open areas,definately the accuracy of the ar is better suited.if it has a longer barrel to get the most from it's cartridge.
i will say that my milled bulgy is pretty accurate with open sights out to 250 yards.
you should have differenciated between the ak-47 and the ak-74,but when i see ak,i assume 7.62

All I know is that I trust my M-16A4 and would love an M4 Carbine (if California would stop stealing our budget money).

Now I'm not a soldier or a weapons expert, so I don't know how much my opinion counts for, but here it is. Personally, I think the AK-47 is a very well-built weapon and it's production figures speak volumes about it's reliability. However, if I had to outfit and army and money was no object, I'd take the M16 assuming I had to choose between the two. But personally, I'd like to see the U.S. Army adopt either the HK 416 or FN SCAR as their next standard rifle. I've seen figures and videos on each of those weapons in action and I like what I saw. I think either one has the potential to become the next big thing in the Armed Forces as long as the Pentagon doesn't can it like they did the XM8 (which, IMO, would have made a great weapon and didn't deserve to be cancelled.)

AK-47, you can bury it, dig it up 10 years later, and still shoot it.
:sniper:

Which weapon is better all depends on the circumstances, ie I'd take an AK or variant in the jungle over an M16/ variant. We've established that before I think. and as far as good or bad grammar goes, if someone corrects my grammar during a firefight, then they need to get their priorities straight. The AK is a simple weapon by design, no roller bolts, just a simple gas blowback. The M16 is a little more complex, and as im no exper on its operating system, im not goin to comment on it. Although the current M16A3 is a lot more reliable than it's Vietnam forerunners, it won't withstand the elements as well as an AK47 will, at least thats how i understand it. Personally though, I would take a IMI Galil, as it combines both the reliablility of the AK series with the accuracy of the M16 series. And as far as next-gen and bullpup's go, Im not quite sure what our British friends is talkin about, their L85 is a POS. I still kinda like the Steyr AUG, never fired one myself, but ive heard good things about it. Another suggestion for the "Other Gun" category would be the G36, although I havnt heard much about it. And Semper Fi to all the Marines out there, joinin ya soon.

My only experience with guns, other than my grandpa's elk hunting rifle (BAM!) has been in computer games, and the M16 is pretty much always the better choice in games. It's more accurate and generally easier to score kills with than an AK-47.

Uh... yeah, games. I think I'll abstain from voting in this poll. ;)

You've got to consider what's been done with both weapons over the years they were introduced. I've fired nearly every variation of the M16 design, as well as a few of the AK's.

The M16, originally the AR-15 introduced by Eugene Stoner back in the sixties, was a piece of shit. I usually can't hit anything with the old A1 sights, and they're really freaking hard to adjust. The A2 was a definite improvement, and I recieved my military training with this weapon, which is all fine and good as far as building entry and CQB goes, having used it for such. The three-round burst capability was designed to reduce ammo expendature as well as provide greater utility for close-range encounters. One trigger-squeeze to loose off three rounds is much more accurate than three seperate squeezes for the same number of rounds. In full-auto, you'd only be firing in bursts of four to five rounds at a time anyway to conserve accuracy and ammo, so three isn't a bad compromise. The .223 (or 5.56x45mm for you NATO purists out there, you know who you are), is actually preferred by SWAT and other close-quarters specialists because it doesn't over penetrate as much as a 9x19mm does when it goes astray. What it lacks in stopping power, it makes up for in deliverable firepower, which is usually what you're after anyway. One hole is better than no holes, and lots of holes is better than one. Bigger holes would be better, but you can't have it all. The new 6.8mm SPC is a good compromise, however, should the US military ever decided to convert.

The A3 and A4 versions were improvements with better fore-ends, rail systems, and flat-top recievers to mount optics to further increase the utility of the weapon, resulting in better accuracy. They were also a bit heavier up front, which reduced recoil and steadied the weapon. The M4, both A1 and A2 versions, were designed to make the weapon better at close-quarters combat with a shorter barrel and full-automatic option, as well as being lighter and retaining decent accuracy and making it easier to carry. You do lose muzzle velocity, however, which equates to less striking force and range, but most engagements for your average infantryman aren't going to be past 300 meters. You've got mortars, grenade launchers, and snipers for anything too much further, and infantry are supposed to close with and kill the enemy, not trade shots with him.

In terms of reliability, there are improvements to be made to the issued weapons, but there are already improvements fielded on civilian models. The gas-piston system, similar to the revised gas system H&K put into their 416 carbine Delta uses, keeps things much cleaner by keeping raw gas from sticking carbon all over the bolt, bolt face, and chamber. Addition of a chrome-plated bolt carrier group makes cleanup a breeze, since most of the carbon will wipe off. The thing also cycles a lot smoother, resulting in less jump and better accuracy. Adding these to the stuff we carry in Iraq and Afganistan would make the 'War on Terror' that much easier to fight, and we'd probably lose fewer lives in the process.


The AK-47, on the other hand, is based off of the German Stung-gewer (I know I butchered that, sorry German guys) 'Storm Rifle', designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov and issued out in 1947 (Aeidractova Kalashnikova 47, and I know I screwed that one up too, but I can't type Russian either, my bad my Russian homies). Designed as a mass-firepower weapon used by tank-supporting infantry, it wasn't really designed to be aimed and fired, rather sprayed at something. Russian military strategy of the time favored the armor over the infantry, a reverse of western thought, and saw the infantry keeping lesser threats away from the tanks with massed firepower from several men firing AK's at the same time to overwhelm the enemy with bullets. Those that have fired the AK can attest to the lack of a highly visible rear sight. The selector lever goes to the full auto position first, again supporting the Russian theory of 'massed firepower' over accurate, sustained fire. I don't build AK's, so I don't know much about them other than that they are one of the most dependable weapons around, ammo isn't scarce, and they excel at killing things. The family of weapons, mainly the SVD and RPD, share the reliability but are specialized for long-distance accuracy with a larger round, and the other for squad-level supressive fire.

It's hard to compare the two because they were designed to do two different things. The M16 was chosen with the American school of 'Accurate Fire' from tank-supported infantry, and is reflected in its excellent accuracy. It wasn't meant to be sprayed. The AK, however, was built to the Russian mentality of 'Massed Fire', saturating an area with bullets. It wasn't meant to be distance accurate.

You can, however, see how both weapons were influenced by each other. The AK-47 was re-issued as the AK-74 with the smaller 5.45mm round because the Americans were using the small 5.56mm round, a move detested by Kalashnikov. The M16 family of weapons has evolved to become much more reliable, use a larger round in some cases, and feature full-automatic options. The AK, now evolved into the AN-94, which is built with space-age composites and materials first pioneered by the M16, has also become updated from its sheet metal and plywood beginnings. There are AR's chambered in 7.62x39mm, AK's in .223, and even combinations of the two weapons.

In terms of adaptability, however, the M16 wins hands down. With the ability to be chambered in a ton of calibers (from .22LR up to .450 Bushmaster and .50 AE) to having variants that are capable of changing caliber on the fly (The SCAR rifle system), changing mission capabilites on the go (Swapping an upper with a short barrel for one with a long one for distance work), and sheer range of accessories designed to enhance the weapon's utility, it dwarfs the AK47. The AK is still more reliable, but the M16 is evolving at a much greater pace. The 416, an M16-based offering from H&K, is nearly 100% reliable under desert and even seaborne conditions, and still retains accuracy. I have yet to see the AK do anything to keep up with that sort of progress, but it isn't backed by multi-billion dollar funding like America's rifle is.

As for picking one over the other, you'd need a defined set of mission parameters and criteria, not just an overall better weapon. If one was better than the other in all things, the other would have been phased out a long time ago.

You've got to consider what's been done with both weapons over the years they were introduced. I've fired nearly every variation of the M16 design, as well as a few of the AK's.

The M16, originally the AR-15 introduced by Eugene Stoner back in the sixties, was a piece of shit. I usually can't hit anything with the old A1 sights, and they're really freaking hard to adjust. The A2 was a definite improvement, and I recieved my military training with this weapon, which is all fine and good as far as building entry and CQB goes, having used it for such. The three-round burst capability was designed to reduce ammo expendature as well as provide greater utility for close-range encounters. One trigger-squeeze to loose off three rounds is much more accurate than three seperate squeezes for the same number of rounds. In full-auto, you'd only be firing in bursts of four to five rounds at a time anyway to conserve accuracy and ammo, so three isn't a bad compromise. The .223 (or 5.56x45mm for you NATO purists out there, you know who you are), is actually preferred by SWAT and other close-quarters specialists because it doesn't over penetrate as much as a 9x19mm does when it goes astray. What it lacks in stopping power, it makes up for in deliverable firepower, which is usually what you're after anyway. One hole is better than no holes, and lots of holes is better than one. Bigger holes would be better, but you can't have it all. The new 6.8mm SPC is a good compromise, however, should the US military ever decided to convert.

The A3 and A4 versions were improvements with better fore-ends, rail systems, and flat-top recievers to mount optics to further increase the utility of the weapon, resulting in better accuracy. They were also a bit heavier up front, which reduced recoil and steadied the weapon. The M4, both A1 and A2 versions, were designed to make the weapon better at close-quarters combat with a shorter barrel and full-automatic option, as well as being lighter and retaining decent accuracy and making it easier to carry. You do lose muzzle velocity, however, which equates to less striking force and range, but most engagements for your average infantryman aren't going to be past 300 meters. You've got mortars, grenade launchers, and snipers for anything too much further, and infantry are supposed to close with and kill the enemy, not trade shots with him.

In terms of reliability, there are improvements to be made to the issued weapons, but there are already improvements fielded on civilian models. The gas-piston system, similar to the revised gas system H&K put into their 416 carbine Delta uses, keeps things much cleaner by keeping raw gas from sticking carbon all over the bolt, bolt face, and chamber. Addition of a chrome-plated bolt carrier group makes cleanup a breeze, since most of the carbon will wipe off. The thing also cycles a lot smoother, resulting in less jump and better accuracy. Adding these to the stuff we carry in Iraq and Afganistan would make the 'War on Terror' that much easier to fight, and we'd probably lose fewer lives in the process.


The AK-47, on the other hand, is based off of the German Stung-gewer (I know I butchered that, sorry German guys) 'Storm Rifle', designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov and issued out in 1947 (Aeidractova Kalashnikova 47, and I know I screwed that one up too, but I can't type Russian either, my bad my Russian homies). Designed as a mass-firepower weapon used by tank-supporting infantry, it wasn't really designed to be aimed and fired, rather sprayed at something. Russian military strategy of the time favored the armor over the infantry, a reverse of western thought, and saw the infantry keeping lesser threats away from the tanks with massed firepower from several men firing AK's at the same time to overwhelm the enemy with bullets. Those that have fired the AK can attest to the lack of a highly visible rear sight. The selector lever goes to the full auto position first, again supporting the Russian theory of 'massed firepower' over accurate, sustained fire. I don't build AK's, so I don't know much about them other than that they are one of the most dependable weapons around, ammo isn't scarce, and they excel at killing things. The family of weapons, mainly the SVD and RPD, share the reliability but are specialized for long-distance accuracy with a larger round, and the other for squad-level supressive fire.

It's hard to compare the two because they were designed to do two different things. The M16 was chosen with the American school of 'Accurate Fire' from tank-supported infantry, and is reflected in its excellent accuracy. It wasn't meant to be sprayed. The AK, however, was built to the Russian mentality of 'Massed Fire', saturating an area with bullets. It wasn't meant to be distance accurate.

You can, however, see how both weapons were influenced by each other. The AK-47 was re-issued as the AK-74 with the smaller 5.45mm round because the Americans were using the small 5.56mm round, a move detested by Kalashnikov. The M16 family of weapons has evolved to become much more reliable, use a larger round in some cases, and feature full-automatic options. The AK, now evolved into the AN-94, which is built with space-age composites and materials first pioneered by the M16, has also become updated from its sheet metal and plywood beginnings. There are AR's chambered in 7.62x39mm, AK's in .223, and even combinations of the two weapons.

In terms of adaptability, however, the M16 wins hands down. With the ability to be chambered in a ton of calibers (from .22LR up to .450 Bushmaster and .50 AE) to having variants that are capable of changing caliber on the fly (The SCAR rifle system), changing mission capabilites on the go (Swapping an upper with a short barrel for one with a long one for distance work), and sheer range of accessories designed to enhance the weapon's utility, it dwarfs the AK47. The AK is still more reliable, but the M16 is evolving at a much greater pace. The 416, an M16-based offering from H&K, is nearly 100% reliable under desert and even seaborne conditions, and still retains accuracy. I have yet to see the AK do anything to keep up with that sort of progress, but it isn't backed by multi-billion dollar funding like America's rifle is.

As for picking one over the other, you'd need a defined set of mission parameters and criteria, not just an overall better weapon. If one was better than the other in all things, the other would have been phased out a long time ago.


very informative and intelligent post,thank you.

as far as good or bad grammar goes, if someone corrects my grammar during a firefight, then they need to get their priorities straight.

its a good thing this forum isn't a firefight then eh?

though by all means if I got some information that would pass as coming for a pre-schooler I'd lose my temper

Im not quite sure what our British friends is talkin about, their L85 is a POS.

no thats the SA80, if anyone gets the two confused odds are there old enough to be your Granddad

AK wins without firing a shot. ;)

no thats the SA80, if anyone gets the two confused odds are there old enough to be your Granddad

Thanks for catchin that, my mistake.

While I am not the most fond of the M16 I will admit that is a fairly relyable gun and that it is all in all easy to maintain. the ak is most definetly a reliable gun and contrary to many peoples....misguided opinions is a very acurate gunwhen properly maintained it doese however not have the same accuracy at longer ranges that the m16 does. it makes up for this in its fully auto or semi auto fire. the m16 suffers in cqb becauses of its lack of close quarters capabilities. ie three round burst. this being said which do you feel is the better weapon?

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/aw%20jeez.jpg

This is an oft "discussed" topic. The thread ends up boiling down to some people saying the AK NEVER jams (although it does, just not as often as some others), people arguing over the ballistics and battlefield effectiveness of the 7.62x39mm round versus the .223cal/5.56mm round, and the anti-gun crowd coming in and turning into a right to bear arms thread.

Did I miss anything?

I have lost faith in all next-gen rifles today. They are all horrible. The XM8E1 is a peice of plastic crap, and "metal force" weapons systems are electronic, and I can't imagine anyone trusting their life to a digital gun, especially around water.

The best contender for a rifle right now would be the Hk-416 . Heckler & Koch are known for re-producing famous weapons ( ONLY WITHOUT ANY OF THEIR PROBLEMS ) the Hk-416 is an M4 varient with a more venting frame and a wider selective fire mode. It's also more accurate and has a longer range. And of course, as all Hk rifles, it is loaded with rails so it is completly modular...

Personally I think we should bring back the NATO 7.62x59mm of the M-14 and make it into a modular medium to long range assault rilfe. That would look pretty cool, and could actually shoot thru things.

I thought the HK-416 was a gas piston operated version of the M-16 (like the M-14 and AK-47)? ETA: Yep, here's the info: http://www.hk-usa.com/le_hk416_features.html

Also, 7.62 Nato is 7.62X51mm, not 7.62x59mm.

OOC: Thanks to whoever called my post intelligent and informative, it's nice to hear.

As for the 416 (I mentioned the thing earlier, fella) being more accurate with a longer range, doubtful. The thing has a barrel like an M4, and as such inferior accuracy to the standard 20-inch M16Awhatever. You're losing sight radius, as well as muzzle velocity by going to the shorter barrel.

Another useful tidbit of info might be that the 'plastic piece of crap' you so despise was actually designed by Heckler and Koch. It's based off of the G36's operating system, and even looks like the thing with the integrated red dot sight. If you disagree, it's somewhere on their website under their military products division.

As far as piston-driven AR's, Lewis Machine and Tool already have one out, as does Bushmaster. Check thier respective websites, or Guns and Ammo's 'Book of the AR-15' for additional details.

There's already an M1A (M14, whatever) in the configuration you're talking about. The Springfield SOCOM models II and 16 are short-barrel versions of the classic M1A, the II model with a rail system for adding the usual goodies and optics. They both fire the medium-power 7.62x51mm NATO standard (Also known as the .308) from twenty-round box magazines. Full-size M1A's accurized and scoped properly have been redesignated the M21 and are being used as sniper weapons along with the Remington 700-based M24/M40 and Barret M82A1.


And as for the AK never jamming, they do. Mostly easily-cleared stovepipes, but you occasionally get something more severe. Not on the scale of an M16 with a bad extractor (the dreaded double-feed!), but like any other mechanical device, you have to lubricate it once and a while, and replace worn parts. The AK's reputation for poor accuracy is probably derived from worn-out barrels fired nearly to the point of being smoothbore, but that's just speculation on my part. Like I said, I don't build AK's, just AR's. I'm not an expert on Russian hardware beyond the T33 Tokarev, and that's just in the field-strip and maintain department. Eastern-bloc stuff is my next area of study.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/aw%20jeez.jpg

This is an oft "discussed" topic. The thread ends up boiling down to some people saying the AK NEVER jams (although it does, just not as often as some others), people arguing over the ballistics and battlefield effectiveness of the 7.62x39mm round versus the .223cal/5.56mm round, and the anti-gun crowd coming in and turning into a right to bear arms thread.

Did I miss anything?

References to the BFG9000/other weapons of computer game pwnage.

Oh, and the eventual descent of the thread into flames and the on schedule arrival at locksville.

OOC: Thanks to whoever called my post intelligent and informative, it's nice to hear.

As for the 416 (I mentioned the thing earlier, fella) being more accurate with a longer range, doubtful. The thing has a barrel like an M4, and as such inferior accuracy to the standard 20-inch M16Awhatever. You're losing sight radius, as well as muzzle velocity by going to the shorter barrel.

Another useful tidbit of info might be that the 'plastic piece of crap' you so despise was actually designed by Heckler and Koch. It's based off of the G36's operating system, and even looks like the thing with the integrated red dot sight. If you disagree, it's somewhere on their website under their military products division.

As far as piston-driven AR's, Lewis Machine and Tool already have one out, as does Bushmaster. Check thier respective websites, or Guns and Ammo's 'Book of the AR-15' for additional details.

There's already an M1A (M14, whatever) in the configuration you're talking about. The Springfield SOCOM models II and 16 are short-barrel versions of the classic M1A, the II model with a rail system for adding the usual goodies and optics. They both fire the medium-power 7.62x51mm NATO standard (Also known as the .308) from twenty-round box magazines. Full-size M1A's accurized and scoped properly have been redesignated the M21 and are being used as sniper weapons along with the Remington 700-based M24/M40 and Barret M82A1.


And as for the AK never jamming, they do. Mostly easily-cleared stovepipes, but you occasionally get something more severe. Not on the scale of an M16 with a bad extractor (the dreaded double-feed!), but like any other mechanical device, you have to lubricate it once and a while, and replace worn parts. The AK's reputation for poor accuracy is probably derived from worn-out barrels fired nearly to the point of being smoothbore, but that's just speculation on my part. Like I said, I don't build AK's, just AR's. I'm not an expert on Russian hardware beyond the T33 Tokarev, and that's just in the field-strip and maintain department. Eastern-bloc stuff is my next area of study.


that was me by the way thanking you for your post,and i will do it again..lol.

i will say i have never exsperianced a misfire or any malfunction with my bulgy ak,and i have with the ar system.
i have probably 1000 rounds thru the ak with not a hiccup.and my maintenance is not near mil std.
the ar i have had many problems,but i hear the newer variants are far more dependable.
i think it boils down to 2 things,the ar has far tighter tolerances,which does enhance the accuracy of the weapon,and conversly the ak is a bit sloppy so it will run dirty,however mine seems to be pretty accurate out to 250 yards.it is a milled and not stamped varient.
also the gas system of the ar is also probably to blame for some of the failures,as it does require more cleaning and maintenance.

my fave assault rifle was a h/k 93 in .223(5.56)that i think was the most accurate rifle i ever owned(i loved the sights) and built like a tank.
little tricky to dissassemble the rollar cam set up,but it was idiot proof and required no tools for disassembly.(aside from a cartridge)
alas the police confiscated it during the n.j. witchhunts on assault rifles.i am sure it is gracing the vault of a happy cop..lol,and the irony is,i did nothing wrong,but they got it.
i had the retractable stock,the tropical forearm,bayo,everything...damn i loved that gun,nothing can replace that rifle.
it never ftf,ever!

References to the BFG9000/other weapons of computer game pwnage.

Oh, and the eventual descent of the thread into flames and the on schedule arrival at locksville.

I thought I had forgotten something. :(

What about the happy bubbles of love and compassion gun? :eek:

A rfiles only good if it hold a decent Bayonet something to put the wind up the enemy

This doesn't qualify as spam why? It is possibly the least relevant, and most disturbing, thread I've yet seen.

also, I believe there have been more AK-47 usedthroughout the world by anyone, anywere. All of Africa uses it, Russia, South America. Not to mention countless street gangs and drug cartels. M-16 is primarily used by the military.

the AK is far better than the M16. But the new Israeli rifle bitchslaps everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21

yeah thats right. I said something somewhat nice about the Israelis, probably won't happen again for a long time.

These M16 vs. AK-47 threads need to stop.

Seriously, quit trying to act like you know which is superior based on your Counterstrike experiences or how much History Channel you've watched. It really gets annoying.

These dumb threads should at least be reserved to people who have at the very least, fired both of these weapons, or better yet, fired them in combat.

Besides, the Pulse Rifle (http://www.tk560.com/studioprops/studioprops-Images/30.jpg) owns all.

Name another weapon that fires a 10mm caseless bullet and is capable of tearing aliens in half. Oh wait, you can't.

also, I believe there have been more AK-47 usedthroughout the world by anyone, anywere. All of Africa uses it, Russia, South America. Not to mention countless street gangs and drug cartels. M-16 is primarily used by the military.

Really?

All of Africa? Does that include South Africa and Zimbabwe to name a couple?

And Russia? I'm pretty sure they've been using the AK-74 for a while.

Of course, I could just be crazy.

To be fair you have to compare the Vietnam era M-16 with the AK-47. The modern Russian army is kitted out with AK-74’s and have been for some time. The AK-74 hit mass production in 1976 and it fires 5.45x39mm. The AK-74M modified design has been issued since the 90’s in Russia. The AK-47 is an export more than anything else, which is why US forces keep meeting it in every crap hole they crawl into. Because the AK-74 has also been around a while, the US are meeting it in foreign theatres too.

Russia’s current export assault rifle if the AK-101 and it uses standard NATO ammo. The AK-103 is only being issued to special forces and other priority units, who always get the best kit in Russia. The AN-94 Abakan was supposed to replace the AK-74M, but the process has stalled and it’s just being issued to elite units for the moment.

What I don’t like about the US M-16 is the cheap plastic stocks. They break too easily when you use it to break down doors or club someone with it. You don’t have the same problem with Russian assault rifles or with the Canadian made M-16 variant, which I prefer. When Canada went with the M-16 they had huge problems with the stocks cracking and breaking in the Arctic, as well as the stock components in general breaking. They added a longer barrel for improved accuracy and a scope, which is a pain in the ass. The Brit scopes are better because they’re attached so you don’t have to keep checking the screws to see if they’ve come loose again and the scope isn’t so big as to give you tunnel vision when you’re shooting.

The AK bolt is damned reliable, much more than the M-16 bolt, which needs that stupid forward assist. How reliable is the AK bolt? Next time you get your paws on a M249 SAW, squad light support machine gun. Take the bolt out and turn it upside down. Now hold an AK bolt next to it. Then ask yourself if maybe NATO didn’t steal the odd bit of tech from the Ruskies.

As much as I love American-bred military tech, the AK-47 is a better weapon.

That said, I'd rather have an old M14 over either.

Depends on the situation, as do most "Favourite" topics.

The M16 (or another gun) would win if you wanted to set up a trained fighting force, but for shear cheap, getting troops on the street, the AK-47 has to win.

If you don't mind losing roughly 40 men for every 1 opponent killed, you can carry AKs and the opponents can carry M-16s.

This is the historical ratio. Accuracy, and the ability to add CQB optics, make the M-16 deadly in CQB. The AK is no longer considered that much more reliable due to product improvements in the M-16 and M-4 over the years.

The HK 416 is a gas piston operated M-16 - it has an op rod that makes it the equal in reliability of the AK (some say superior) with the same controls, profile, caliber, and appearance of the regular M-16.

Go ahead - use an AK. We'll be posting the body shots on the Internet.

This debate happens so often on NSG, even the worst gun-hater could take part by now.

While I am not the most fond of the M16 I will admit that is a fairly relyable gun and that it is all in all easy to maintain. the ak is most definetly a reliable gun and contrary to many peoples....misguided opinions is a very acurate gunwhen properly maintained it doese however not have the same accuracy at longer ranges that the m16 does. it makes up for this in its fully auto or semi auto fire. the m16 suffers in cqb becauses of its lack of close quarters capabilities. ie three round burst. this being said which do you feel is the better weapon?


First off, if you are going to start a thread on a complicated subject such as which gun is better, you had better be able to spell the words correctly. The AK-47 is not accurate at distance, it is accurate in CQB, but it would be hard to make a gun that isnt. You also need to ask specific questions, such as which gun is better for a professional army with professional soldiers, the obvious answer is the M16. For a bunch of poorly trained guerrilas, the AK is better. The M-16 does not lack as much as you think in CQB, its carbine version, the M4 is superior to the AK47 in every way except reliability, however if trained soldiers are cleaning and maintaining their rifle properly, there will be hardly any problems. The carbine version of the M4 does have a full auto setting, so get your shit in line. Most combat line troopers are using the M4 nowadays anyway. Threads like this pop up a lot, and its mostly filled with garbage from people who think they know their shit.

This debate happens so often on NSG, even the worst gun-hater could take part by now.

Well, I hate most sports, and since I have to go to a bar every once in a while, I get information about sports by osmosis. This sounds like the same kind of thing.

If you don't mind losing roughly 40 men for every 1 opponent killed, you can carry AKs and the opponents can carry M-16s.

This is the historical ratio.

Might this not be due to the militaries (military) that traditionally use the M16 and those who use the AK-47 themselves?

Might this not be due to the militaries (military) that traditionally use the M16 and those who use the AK-47 themselves?

The IDF did a study. They had only recently moved from the Galil (at the time of the study) which is an AK type weapon, to the M-16.

They found that against Palestinians (who have always used the AK) the kill ratio in rifle fights is 40 to 1. The Palestinians also expend a lot more ammunition - nearly twice as much.

We're getting similar numbers in Iraq in firefights.

If I have an M-4 with a red dot optic for the members of my squad, and they are average shots, they'll be able to snap shoot at soda cans at 100 yards, and hit every time. 100 yards or less is urban fighting distance.

You're lucky to hit a man in the open with a snap shot from an AK at 100 yards - it takes longer because you're using iron sights, and can't fit a red dot optic. Likely, you'll be shot dead before you can pull the trigger.

Full automatic fire is no panacea - it usually does nothing except lighten your load, unless you are a few yards away.

GPMG (guns designed to be machineguns firing full auto all the time) only really work if emplaced - then they hit people WAY out there. Fired from the hip, there's a lot of misses.

The IDF did a study. They had only recently moved from the Galil (at the time of the study) which is an AK type weapon, to the M-16.

They found that against Palestinians (who have always used the AK) the kill ratio in rifle fights is 40 to 1. The Palestinians also expend a lot more ammunition - nearly twice as much.

We're getting similar numbers in Iraq in firefights.

If I have an M-4 with a red dot optic for the members of my squad, and they are average shots, they'll be able to snap shoot at soda cans at 100 yards, and hit every time. 100 yards or less is urban fighting distance.

You're lucky to hit a man in the open with a snap shot from an AK at 100 yards - it takes longer because you're using iron sights, and can't fit a red dot optic. Likely, you'll be shot dead before you can pull the trigger.

Full automatic fire is no panacea - it usually does nothing except lighten your load, unless you are a few yards away.

GPMG (guns designed to be machineguns firing full auto all the time) only really work if emplaced - then they hit people WAY out there. Fired from the hip, there's a lot of misses.

What I meant was that chances are the US military or the IDF will probably do rather well in terms of a kill ratio against insurgents regardless of the guns they use. Any studies which show two mostly equal militaries fighting it out?

Although the M16 is sleek and sexy, The Kalishnakov is utterly more reliable. It will work no matter what you do to it. :mp5:

What I meant was that chances are the US military or the IDF will probably do rather well in terms of a kill ratio against insurgents regardless of the guns they use. Any studies which show two mostly equal militaries fighting it out?

The IDF was able to isolate a lot of variable, and credited two things.

1. The ability to mount optics that greatly enhance the speed of target acquisition and accuracy.
2. The inherent accuracy of the 5.56mm and the M-16 platform.

If you've shot a weapon with iron sights, and a weapon with an ACOG or EOTech combat optic, you'll see the vast difference yourself. Speed, accuracy, and all without a great deal of training.

The AK cannot mount any of these.

The M-16 family is the product of decades of continuous improvement.

The AKM has not effectively been modernized or improved in decades.

Even the AK-74 is essentially an ancient weapon.

The IDF was able to isolate a lot of variable, and credited two things.

1. The ability to mount optics that greatly enhance the speed of target acquisition and accuracy.
2. The inherent accuracy of the 5.56mm and the M-16 platform.

If you've shot a weapon with iron sights, and a weapon with an ACOG or EOTech combat optic, you'll see the vast difference yourself. Speed, accuracy, and all without a great deal of training.

The AK cannot mount any of these.
IIRC the Russians made a knock-off of the British Starlight sights we made for our L1A1 system which they fitted to the AK74M.
The M-16 family is the product of decades of continuous improvement.

The AKM has not effectively been modernized or improved in decades.

Even the AK-74 is essentially an ancient weapon.
What about the AK-100 series, or indeed the efforts of the Eastern European states to try and improve their AK74s into something better - IIRC the Ukranians are going to make a bullpup version to equip their army with, called the Vepr, but from the Soviet equivalent, the OC-14 Groza, this probably won't make much odds.

IIRC the Russians made a knock-off of the British Starlight sights we made for our L1A1 system which they fitted to the AK74M.

What about the AK-100 series, or indeed the efforts of the Eastern European states to try and improve their AK74s into something better - IIRC the Ukranians are going to make a bullpup version to equip their army with, called the Vepr, but from the Soviet equivalent, the OC-14 Groza, this probably won't make much odds.

The problems with sights on the AK-74 or AK-100 series is the upper receiver.

Too much play in it.

The Starlight sights are not quick reaction sights, either.

I don't know, the Czech Republic is eliminating the AK's altogether. They're going for an upgraded model of their Skorpion machine pistol with 3-round burst and a fixed stock.

As far as I'm concerned, both the M-16 and the AK are now quite obsolete. Give me a Steyr AUG in preference any day.

I don't know, the Czech Republic is eliminating the AK's altogether. They're going for an upgraded model of their Skorpion machine pistol with 3-round burst and a fixed stock.

As far as I'm concerned, both the M-16 and the AK are now quite obsolete. Give me a Steyr AUG in preference any day.

But the AUG is ugly! :p

But the AUG is ugly! :p

The AUG can put the entire clip through the centre of the target at 100 meters.

And I'm not even a very good shot.

The AUG can put the entire clip through the centre of the target at 100 meters.

And I'm not even a very good shot.

As to the M4/M16 well it wins hands down in the sexiness department to me - but some find the AUG to be tops in the looks department. Damned near every Special Forces unit in the western world uses the M-4 though due to its reliability and versatility.

If you lived in the USA the availability of parts is mindblowing.

Both of the rifles are combat proven, and I believe that the operator makes the weapon, not the other way around. Giving a fully kitted out M-4 or AUG to a numpty assed baggy is not going to transform him into Voltron to lay waste to the heathen masses.

As to the M4/M16 well it wins hands down in the sexiness department to me - but some find the AUG to be tops in the looks department. Damned near every Special Forces unit in the western world uses the M-4 though due to its reliability and versatility.

If you lived in the USA the availability of parts is mindblowing.

Both of the rifles are combat proven, and I believe that the operator makes the weapon, not the other way around. Giving a fully kitted out M-4 or AUG to a numpty assed baggy is not going to transform him into Voltron to lay waste to the heathen masses.

Well said. I'd rather have a man behind me with a Mosin-Nagant who knew what he was doing than a guy with a METALSTORM machinegun who didn't know rule one of gun safety.

Is the HK MP5 (in whatever style) generally regarded as a good assault rifle?

Is the HK MP5 (in whatever style) generally regarded as a good assault rifle?

No. But it is regarded as an excellent submachinegun.

An SMG fires pistol ammo, an AR rifle ammo. The latter are longer and usually have a greater ration of propellant to bullet weight, resulting in higher muzzle velocities. Rifles also usually have a longer barrel, making them more accurate and further increasing muzzle velocity.

As a result, ARs have a significantly greater effective range and much better penetrating power against body armour. Offsetting this, SMGs are handier in close combat situations, such as room-to-room fighting, making them a better choice for such things as police entry teams and special forces.

Is the HK MP5 (in whatever style) generally regarded as a good assault rifle?

1. It's not an assault rifle. It's a submachinegun (or technicall, a machine pistol).

2. Not much use past 100 yards. And not nearly as lethal as rifle.

yeah, gimme a .308 any day.

hehe

What are the practical differences between a submachine gun and an assault rifle?

yeah, gimme a .308 any day.

hehe

What are the practical differences between a submachine gun and an assault rifle?

Effective range
Power of the round
Utility in confined spaces (indoors, cornering, etc).

Effective range
Power of the round
Utility in confined spaces (indoors, cornering, etc).

Also, many ARs are limited to 3-round bursts. SMGs are almost always full-auto.

Effective range
Power of the round
Utility in confined spaces (indoors, cornering, etc).

danke

I think I had them lumped in the same bucket.

Also, many ARs are limited to 3-round bursts. SMGs are almost always full-auto.

I never had a problem in CQB using the M-4 on single shot.

I never had a problem in CQB using the M-4 on single shot.

Neither did I. But it is a common difference.

As was said earlier, I would rather have a thousand cheap guns than a hundred quality ones.

Although personally I think the Steyr AUG A1 combines the best elements of both - even if it still isnt quite up to scratch on the cqb front... :sniper:

What are the practical differences between a submachine gun and an assault rifle?
There are a fair few, mainly involving handiness in small spaces such as buildings, the power of the round, weight of the weapons and the fact that SMG sights are pretty much useless after about 50 metres.

On the other hand, other than for certain CQB situations, such as hostage rescue, in which it's actually quite useful to take at least a few of the assailants alive for questioning, a lot of armies and special forces use carbines, which are, in many respects, a halfway-house type affair, with good killing power, a fair level of handiness and good accuracy to a longer range than an SMG.

Also, many ARs are limited to 3-round bursts. SMGs are almost always full-auto.
Isn't the 3-round bursts thing more an issue with M16-type weapons than many ARs?

For example, most European ARs are actually single/auto (the SA80, for example), and a fair few are Single/Burst (often 2 rounds rather than 3)/Auto (the FAMAS, G36 et al), no?

Answering the title: AK47. Millions of insurgents worldwide cannot be wrong.

My cousin, who is a marine, said that the main advantage of the M16 is that its alot lighter than the AK-47 because its made out of fiberglass. The weight is not a big issue during combat but it is a big issue the rest of the time when you are hiking or packing your gear.

Answering the title: AK47. Millions of insurgents worldwide cannot be wrong.

As long as they don't mind taking a dirt nap.

The only real bullet is the 7.62x54R.

All others are for purse toting girly men.

The only real bullet is the 7.62x54R.

All others are for purse toting girly men.

Only if you think of your weapon as a substitute phallus.

Only if you think of your weapon as a substitute phallus.

Yeah, and with the 22 inch bayonet attached it stands roughly 5'4" inches tall, a good inch taller than I am. That's a damn fine "substitute phallus" if you ask my opinion.

Are you insecure because you havn't bought a new purse for your new girly weapons, or do you simply fear the Mosin-Nagant's unrivaled knock down, rugged durability, and the ability to work just as well as the day it rolled off the assembly line 77 years later?

Yeah, and with the 22 inch bayonet attached it stands roughly 5'4" inches tall, a good inch taller than I am. That's a damn fine "substitute phallus" if you ask my opinion.

Are you insecure because you havn't bought a new purse for your new girly weapons, or do you simply fear the Mosin-Nagant's unrivaled knock down, rugged durability, and the ability to work just as well as the day it rolled off the assembly line 77 years later?

If I want knockdown power, I always have my Marlin Guide Gun in 45-70.

But it's short, and handy, and doesn't have a bayonet.

If I want knockdown power, I always have my Marlin Guide Gun in 45-70.

But it's short, and handy, and doesn't have a bayonet.

So when we have a firefight and run out of ammo, you're pretty much screwed.

Unless of course, you're hiding more bullets in this (http://www.ckbproducts.com/images/Leather-Burgundy-Purse.jpg).

So when we have a firefight and run out of ammo, you're pretty much screwed.

Unless of course, you're hiding more bullets in this (http://www.ckbproducts.com/images/Leather-Burgundy-Purse.jpg).

Oh, that's not for a firefight.

This is.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/fun02.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/fun03.jpg

Or, optionally, if I want to shoot from much further away than you can manage with a Mosin-Nagant:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/MVC-005F.jpg

Ok so I'm going to stand up in the middle of a fire fight and correct some ragheads grammer? or maybe a fellow letherneck?

You cant be a Marine, you cant even spell your own damned nickname correctly that you guys are so proud of being called. Probably cant spell Jarhead either.

You cant be a Marine, you cant even spell your own damned nickname correctly that you guys are so proud of being called. Probably cant spell Jarhead either.

And you're not high speed, either.

And you're not high speed, either.

Never claimed to be, have many family and friends that are in USASOC, and teaching in USAJFKSWC, and some out in the sandbox right now with the 3rd, and 5th SFG. So dont accuse me of saying something I never did.

Never claimed to be, have many family and friends that are in USASOC, and teaching in USAJFKSWC, and some out in the sandbox right now with the 3rd, and 5th SFG. So dont accuse me of saying something I never did.

Just looking at your forum name, that's all.

No problem, Im actually suprised that you understood the abbreviation, outside of Ft. Bragg, most Army guys have never even heard of it.

No problem, Im actually suprised that you understood the abbreviation, outside of Ft. Bragg, most Army guys have never even heard of it.

I'm full of surprises.

The AK is not based on the Sturm Gewehr, at least not internally, it is based more on the m1 garand.

It uses an intermediate catridge, and a similar external layout, big whoop.

The Ak and the m16 are both good rifles, and if you get a decent AK, such as one with a forged chrome lined steyr barrel, on a milled receiver, it's rather accurate. Of course, m16s, with the new features are rather reliable. However, what pisses me off, is that people think guns get obsolete. If they were made right the first time, they don't get obsolete. It might sound like an absurd argument, but pretty much all of our firearms technology has been around for 50-70 years. Chrome lining, double stacking in the magazines, modern less fouling powder, has all been around that long. What's so damned spiffy about anything new they have rolling off the production lines? The only new things I've seen are ways to make guns cheaper, and usually of less quality. No thank, I'd take a forged/milled AK over some crappy stamped one any day. And the m16 using a freaking aluminum receiver? ugh. I'd be happy to have an m16, as long as it was made of a real metal, like steel.

Of course, I currently own an SKS, and am trying to get the thing able to take AK mags, should prove to be quite a rifle is possible. More accurate than any AK, with the same firepower, and fricking reliable.

However, major props to H&K arms, they've figured out how to use stamping, welding, and the like, and still make rifles both accurate and reliable. America will never get ahead in any arms race, as long as the NFA of '34 prevent inventors, for the most part, from coming up with new ideas. Stoner is a rarity in today's world. Of course, we could all let military arms firms develop new guns, like the m60. HA HA HA HA HA! What a piece of crap. Should have left it the mg42.

My cousin, who is a marine, said that the main advantage of the M16 is that its alot lighter than the AK-47 because its made out of fiberglass. The weight is not a big issue during combat but it is a big issue the rest of the time when you are hiking or packing your gear.

The upper and lower recievers of the M-16/AR-15 is made from aircraft grade Aluminum (7075, IIRC), and the barrel is steel. The only plastic (not fiberglass) parts of the M-16/AR-15 are the stock (although it has a metal buffer tube in it), and the trigger guard (and there's a metal replacement for that).

If you don't mind losing roughly 40 men for every 1 opponent killed, you can carry AKs and the opponents can carry M-16s.

This is the historical ratio. Accuracy, and the ability to add CQB optics, make the M-16 deadly in CQB. The AK is no longer considered that much more reliable due to product improvements in the M-16 and M-4 over the years.

The HK 416 is a gas piston operated M-16 - it has an op rod that makes it the equal in reliability of the AK (some say superior) with the same controls, profile, caliber, and appearance of the regular M-16.

Go ahead - use an AK. We'll be posting the body shots on the Internet.

That's about as sensible as saying that American helicopters are better than insurgent's helicopters. Oh wait they don't have any. Kill rates based on conflicts between US troops and small rebel or crap nations, shows a lack of understanding or lobbyist from a gun manufacturer.

What it shows is that even when using an M-16, having actual military training and being backed up by an overwhelming air, naval, artillery, and tank resources can win every battle. Most of these developing nations the US plays whack a mole on don't exactly make Jane's list for most professional forces. If you dumped a bunch of M-16's in the developing world you'd see the same results.

The IDF was able to isolate a lot of variable, and credited two things.

1. The ability to mount optics that greatly enhance the speed of target acquisition and accuracy.
2. The inherent accuracy of the 5.56mm and the M-16 platform.

If you've shot a weapon with iron sights, and a weapon with an ACOG or EOTech combat optic, you'll see the vast difference yourself. Speed, accuracy, and all without a great deal of training.

The AK cannot mount any of these.

The M-16 family is the product of decades of continuous improvement.

The AKM has not effectively been modernized or improved in decades.

Even the AK-74 is essentially an ancient weapon.

I'll repost this, since it's very obvious you failed to read it:

"The AK-74M modified design has been issued since the 90’s in Russia. The AK-47 is an export more than anything else, which is why US forces keep meeting it in every crap hole they crawl into. Because the AK-74 has also been around a while, the US are meeting it in foreign theatres too.

Russia’s current export assault rifle if the AK-101 and it uses standard NATO ammo. The AK-103 is only being issued to special forces and other priority units, who always get the best kit in Russia. The AN-94 Abakan was supposed to replace the AK-74M, but the process has stalled and it’s just being issued to elite units for the moment."

Also, many ARs are limited to 3-round bursts. SMGs are almost always full-auto.

The Canadian variant of the M-16 has full auto instead of the 3-round burst. That's more a matter of trusting your troops not to go Rambo with your ammunitions stocks than anything else.

The Canadian variant of the M-16 has full auto instead of the 3-round burst. That's more a matter of trusting your troops not to go Rambo with your ammunitions stocks than anything else.


No, thats because it has been proven that troops are more accurate firing in bursts than in full auto.

M249 SAW or MG36.

Oh rifles?

Kar .98 :D

No, thats because it has been proven that troops are more accurate firing in bursts than in full auto.

That's the firer's discretion. Just because you have full auto doesn't mean you wouldn't use it in short bursts. About the only time it's real nice to have full auto is on patrol when you're doing an Aussi peel back from front contact.

But really this isn't about Russia good American bad, or the reverse. If we were talking about infantry fighting vehicles, invented by the Soviets, I'd go with the Bradley or Warrior (UK) every time. The Soviet BMP's may have nicer, lower silhouettes, but they also have side opening doors. Great for being gunned down without any cover as you exit the IFV. Worse if you get an early dismount order or the guy holding the door, ready to go, slips; they're under the wheels.

It's about the M-16 having a sucky bolt that even the addition of a forward assist mechanism can't always help. It's about cheap stock components that break when any force is applied to them. The M-16 can handle a bit of water and fire too, it's just not as hardy as the AK rifles are for being soldier proof and having an awesome bolt. Stoppages are a bit too unrare on M-16's to trust, even if you properly maintain the weapon.

true the m16 is a good mid to long range weapon but as I said it suffers from lack of cqb capabilities. this poeses a problem when clearing rooms and no amout of modification can compensate for a bad bolt and upperreciever design.

That's what the M-4 is for.

No problem, Im actually suprised that you understood the abbreviation, outside of Ft. Bragg, most Army guys have never even heard of it.

It is quite the acronym, and I do believe that it might be key in the old debate: Who loves delusionally long acronyms more? The military, the intelligence community or the international NGO's.

But really this isn't about Russia good American bad, or the reverse. If we were talking about infantry fighting vehicles, invented by the Soviets, I'd go with the Bradley or Warrior (UK) every time. The Soviet BMP's may have nicer, lower silhouettes, but they also have side opening doors. Great for being gunned down without any cover as you exit the IFV. Worse if you get an early dismount order or the guy holding the door, ready to go, slips; they're under the wheels.
Irrelevant, but the BMP-3 is something pretty special, poss. better than the Bradley and maybe a little better than the Warrior (underpowered gun, but really spiffing armour).

Oh and they've got a rear door as well as side doors IIRC.

the ak is most definetly a reliable gun and contrary to many peoples....misguided opinions is a very acurate gunwhen properly maintained it doese however not have the same accuracy at longer ranges that the m16 does.

Yeah, this is why the Russian infantry teams usually have one or two marksmen with SVD Dragunovs, to extend the range.

I'd trust an AK more than a M-16, because it is easier to maintain properly and repair. Also, most gunfights with a/rs take place at distances within 150 m, so really no need for long range. At any range above 150, a/rs are good just to make some suppression fire.

About the 5.56: recent AK a/rs are 5.56 iirc. (or is it 5.75? meh.) Anyway, Russians have abandoned the 7.62 Warsaw Pact cartridge for a/rs since at least 10 years.

I'll repost this, since it's very obvious you failed to read it:

"The AK-74M modified design has been issued since the 90’s in Russia. The AK-47 is an export more than anything else, which is why US forces keep meeting it in every crap hole they crawl into. Because the AK-74 has also been around a while, the US are meeting it in foreign theatres too.

Russia’s current export assault rifle if the AK-101 and it uses standard NATO ammo. The AK-103 is only being issued to special forces and other priority units, who always get the best kit in Russia. The AN-94 Abakan was supposed to replace the AK-74M, but the process has stalled and it’s just being issued to elite units for the moment."

You'll find that it doesn't matter - all of export models are iron sights only.

We never see them in theater with any ability to mount any optics.

Irrelevant, but the BMP-3 is something pretty special, poss. better than the Bradley and maybe a little better than the Warrior (underpowered gun, but really spiffing armour).

Oh and they've got a rear door as well as side doors IIRC.

Also, the latest upgrade features Arena as standard.:D Yes, the BMP-3 is my ideal car.;)

Irrelevant, but the BMP-3 is something pretty special, poss. better than the Bradley and maybe a little better than the Warrior (underpowered gun, but really spiffing armour).

Oh and they've got a rear door as well as side doors IIRC.

Yeah, the three model adjusted the engine placement to allow a rear door. But actually, the old side door system wasn't too bad - Russian doctrine was to slew the taxi around and use the door opposite the enemy for debarkation.

I don't know if they've solved the BMP's nasty tendency to stall if it was side-on to a slope, though. I spent some time with a bunch of Russian mech infantry in '99, and they told me the BMP goes up or down slopes perfectly - but god help you if you have to go along one.

It is quite the acronym, and I do believe that it might be key in the old debate: Who loves delusionally long acronyms more? The military, the intelligence community or the international NGO's.


I think the US Army has got all other branches of the military beat on this one, including the Marines.

I think the US Army has got all other branches of the military beat on this one, including the Marines.
The Marine Corps has nothing on the Navy when it comes to really long and unpronounceable names for places.

A simple attack squadron might be ATKRON-115, but the commander of the wing that it belongs to would be COMMATVAQWINGPAC -- Commander, Medium Attack Tactical Electronic Warfare Wing, US Pacific Fleet (Whidbey Island)

Also know to his closest friends as VACUUMPAC

That's why the saying goes. "No matter how many people want to hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya, there's always one guy off in a corner polishing his AK-47." But I never knew about flags and emblems with AKs on them.

Yea the flag of Mozambique has a kalashnikov in it's crest

Is the HK MP5 (in whatever style) generally regarded as a good assault rifle?

No, but it is regarded as one of the best sub machine guns in the world...

Voted other gun only because i think the ak5 D is so sexy! :3

The AK-47 is one hell of a gun.

the ak or kalashnikov is one of the best guns in the world in my list apart from the P90 and the 45. desert eagle mp5 mp5

I'll take the AG3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AG-3) (litterarily) over the AK-47 or the M-16. I might get the HK 416 instead of the AG3 though...

Yea the flag of Mozambique has a kalashnikov in it's crest

Yeah, I checked it.

The Marine Corps has nothing on the Navy when it comes to really long and unpronounceable names for places.

A simple attack squadron might be ATKRON-115, but the commander of the wing that it belongs to would be COMMATVAQWINGPAC -- Commander, Medium Attack Tactical Electronic Warfare Wing, US Pacific Fleet (Whidbey Island)

Also know to his closest friends as VACUUMPAC


The likes the Navy might have finally beat the Army in something besides football.