|
|
Post by CAC001 on Aug 16, 2006 16:29:24 GMT -7
The AK-47 and the M16 are, and have always been rivals. After all, the USA uses the M16 [and variants], and usually it's enemies use the AK. This is a thread to discuss your opinions on which is better, and why. Please keep flaming to a minimum  . I'll state my opinion, I think that they both have strong points and weak points. Personally, I prefer the M16 due mainly to it's looks and the fact that it's the main USFOR weapon, but I realize the AK-47 can stand up to worse conditions and has much better knock-down power. The list of pros and cons goes on... Overall, I like both guns, but like the M16 a tad more for the above stated reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Demolition Lover on Aug 16, 2006 16:47:50 GMT -7
AK-47. The stereotypical "Terrorist" fires an AK-47 on full auto from the hip and doesn't hit anything. In reality, the AK-47 is a burst weapon. It's not something you spray with. You shoulder the rifle, fire two rounds at the target, and move on. Anything beyond that is innacurate and overkill. The M16 is a nice rifle, and very accurate. However, the AK-47 is commonly more accurate on the first shot than the M16/4. This is in part due to the 7.62mm round. Also, with the AK-47, the two-shot burst is all you need. The 7.62 has a very high stopping power, as opposed to the 5.56. However, outside of the bullets, the guns are actually both very similar. Both have solid stocks, thirty round magazines, the ability to mount a grenade launcher, bayonet, and the ability to mount a scope. Granted, a scope is easier on an M16 because of the built-in rails. Usually this would remove the use of iron sights, but you can get a setup that doesn't block the iron sights. However, not all scopes can be mounted on this. The AK-47 has a scope rail system that doesn't block the iron sights as well, and can hold any scope style. The AK-47 has wood for it's stock, handgrip, and front handguard. Now, to me, not only does it look nice, but I'm an improvising man. Meaning, if I'm within a foot of an enemy and caught with an empty magazine, I want a weapon that'll stand up to me hitting someone with the stock. The M16 can do this as well, but there's a much, much higher chance of breaking something. Now, maintainence. The M16 is a complicated weapon, without any simple quick takedown. The M16 doesn't stand up to prolonged bad conditions well either. However, the M16 definately takes less work to keep looking nice, as it's all metal or polymer and easier to clean than wood. Now, the AK-47 is much easier to maintain. First, the takedown is designed to be very simple, and quick to do. It was designed as a weapon anyone could maintain. The AK-47 stands up to prolonged bad conditions astonishingly. Why? Simple. When the gun was being designed, the inner workings were put in as far apart as possible. The M16 is compact to a degree when it comes to the workings. Dust gets in the workings and gets stuck in them. The AK-47's looser internals means that if dust gets inside the gun, it won't be as likely for it to get into the parts. The dust would have many more places to go to as opposed to the parts. Also, the AK-47 has the cleaning rod mounted right below the barrel, all you need is some cloth to put on the end. And the final point is of course personal preference. The way the sights are designed, they are very quick to be lined up. Very good for CQC. And, if you were to mount, say, a long-range scope on the gun, you could still have the iron sights, in case you were in close quarters. So personally, I'm a great fan of both guns and would eagerly use an M16 if the need aroused, but I personally would carry the AK-47, because it's a proven design that's very sure to work for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinger85 on Aug 18, 2006 9:27:46 GMT -7
I personally think it comes down to the situation. i mean as i told jimmy last night if i'm going into a hot zone and intels confirmed most enemies are armed with AKs i'll take the AK. if most enemies have NATO stander 5.56 mm ammo i'll take the M16. But lets be honest here the M16 is only really good when you doule tap of put two in the chest one in the head. The AK however is a very effeciant weapon in combat. on full auto just do little bursts or even better semi auto. The AK is extremely easy to take apart and clean. Also on a similiar note the standard image of americas enemies with the AK is changing rapidly. many of them are equiping themselves with M16s nowadays. personally i prefer the AK47.
|
|
|
|
Post by cac007 on Aug 19, 2006 9:46:02 GMT -7
Ak all the way because the ak is more durable and rarly jams unlike the m16 if anything went into the barrell you mine as well call it done unless you have something to clean it with. also the ak is more accurate than an m16 and now these days our enemys usually use the Ak. though then again america is dropping the m16 soon for a new rifle soon
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeyboy236 on Sept 30, 2006 20:39:02 GMT -7
AK-47 FTW its been used for a LONG time
it shoots like a charm thouh a but unaccurate (yes I have shot one-well civallan anyway)
it is realibal too! It is just a PERFECT design if not its pretty close to perfect anyway
I love the M-16 but its design is how would I say......lacking
|
|
|
|
Post by Demolition Lover on Oct 6, 2006 23:09:51 GMT -7
Yes you can do all this on an AK but the M16 lends itself better to customization. Gonna have to call you on that. If I get myself a foward hanguard that's railed for the AK-47, and then add an optics rail, the AK-47 has the exact same number of rails for custom parts to go on. And the rail determines what can go on, not the gun. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeyboy236 on Oct 7, 2006 14:14:41 GMT -7
haha even the xperts say so, on the military channel, they did top 10 combat rifles M16 was 2nd
AK-47 was 1st
But by looks the M16 wins (IMO)
|
|
|
|
Post by wheziestmoney on Oct 8, 2006 18:22:33 GMT -7
mikeyboy is right about the military channel but by looks id have to disagree
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeyboy236 on Oct 9, 2006 15:33:49 GMT -7
Thats why I said IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by stinger85 on Nov 2, 2006 6:44:57 GMT -7
More of our enemys now are switching to the M16 because they can get ammo for it more easily. And the AK would jam if something goes down the barrel to, most guns do. The M16s little cousin however is getting upgraded-see future weapons thread
|
|
|
|
Post by n8than15 on Dec 9, 2007 20:09:04 GMT -7
Little late post but, I think the Ak-47 wins, it never jams, you can poor sand down the barrel and nothing will happen. Its easy to clean and is a very cheap weapon to buy for a large army. Its been said that it should be a child's first weapon, as there is no way he can break or jam it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CAC001 on Dec 9, 2007 22:20:34 GMT -7
Heh, kinda forgot about this topic. Yeah, my mind has definitely changed drastically from my opening post... Now I realize how the AK-47 is a superior weapon in almost all aspects, and I've had more experience shooting guns like the AR-15, Mini-30, and SKS to compare how the guns are in real life.
|
|
|
|
Post by cac007 on Dec 12, 2007 19:38:23 GMT -7
well my mind hasn't changed the AK-47 still beats the M-16. But america has changed and so has our weapon choices so maybe we can change the topic up and talk about the newer tech on the guns we use today and what guns we use in general
|
|
|
|
Post by CAC001 on Dec 12, 2007 21:34:41 GMT -7
|
|
Doc1
Private
When you get out there you only have 2 friends, God and your M-1.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Doc1 on Jan 28, 2008 11:59:16 GMT -7
I have fired the AK-47 and the 5.56x45 weapons before. The Ak-47 kicks pretty bad, and yes it does jam. All this stuff about it never jams isn't totally true. Even a weapon of it's reputation needs to be cleaned about week to at least keep it from jamming. The .223 round is good for target shooting, but lacks in knock down power. Personnaly I think that the US should convert to the .308 round. Cheep, hard hitting, accurate, fun to shoot.
|
|
.
