AK47 vs M16

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The thing is the VAST majority of shooters aren't accurate enough that the M16s better accuracy means anything to them. If you have an army of draftees or even trained grunts they will do just fine with an AK47. And for the highly trained soldiers then you can give them more advanced weapons.

Meh. I wasn't a "highly trained" soldier, and I was probably somewhere near the 80th percentile for rifle shooters. I could do way more damage with an M16/M4.

Your post is laughable at best, the accuracy difference is enormous.

Actually, the part you quote is fairly accurate, at least with reference to untrained militias and Banana Republic militaries. If you were to hand a tribal grunt an M4 with a cleaning kit, how long do you think the M4 would continue to fire? By contrast, you can give that same ex-farmer from a small village an AK and at least have someone who can pull a trigger with a reasonable expectation of something coming out the muzzle, though perhaps not in the desired direction. 🙂

In comparison to most armed forces in the world (counting all the countries with a military, truly professional armed forces being among the exemptions), any member of the US military is highly trained.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: TallBill
M16 is a lot different then an M4.

Care to enlighten a real-life noob? 😉

M4 is shorter.

Doesn't it also have no automatic-fire mode, only burst-fire? Which I think is bullshit, since removing options is never a good thing.

When the hell is Full auto ever better than burst fire?

extremely close range?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: TallBill
M16 is a lot different then an M4.

Care to enlighten a real-life noob? 😉

M4 is shorter.

Doesn't it also have no automatic-fire mode, only burst-fire? Which I think is bullshit, since removing options is never a good thing.

When the hell is Full auto ever better than burst fire?

extremely close range?

And suppressive fire.

The M4A1 is auto/semi/safe

The M4 was 3/semi/safe. Very few M4s were fielded. Less than 400 IIRC.

 

[Barfo]

M4 for me pls.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Doesn't it also have no automatic-fire mode, only burst-fire? Which I think is bullshit, since removing options is never a good thing.

Well the problem is most troops aren't that highely educated so they just "spray and pray" and shoot off all their ammo way to quick. So they took full auto off the M16 so people actually take the time to aim instead of just shooting wildly. OF course the better soldiers can use full auto on the more "advanced" guns like the M4.

WTF do you know about soldier's training? You are an idiot and your comments are an insult to those of us who have served. The reason why they went to the burst is because sometimes soldiers would panic when fired upon and the magazine would be emptied way too quickly. It's very easy to panic in a firefight, only the most coolest of heads will not want to "spray and pray". You talk like someone who has never been in any armed forces, let alone a real firefight. STFU with your ill-informed comments. You're probably some kid that likes to hang out at ranges and act like a tough guy because he's fired a few rounds. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE IN COMBAT!

Well, I just crouch next to a fence post or car hood and hold the L2 button until all the gangstas are on the ground. That's one more piece of turf for my empire.

 

[skace]

Don't feel like reading the whole thread and I can't watch the video. But here is a semi related question.

In CS the AK47's main benefit (IIRC from the years I played) was that the first shot out of the gun was 100% accurate while not moving. So basically, in a single fire mode it was an extremely accurate weapon. Is there any real life basis to that?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: skace
Don't feel like reading the whole thread and I can't watch the video. But here is a semi related question.

In CS the AK47's main benefit (IIRC from the years I played) was that the first shot out of the gun was 100% accurate while not moving. So basically, in a single fire mode it was an extremely accurate weapon. Is there any real life basis to that?

Well, the first shot from a cold barrel will generally be more accurate than subsequent shots. Not really enough to tell to the average shooter.

Under sustained or rapid fire, groups can open up quite a bit as the barrel heats up. Not something noticeable when shooting watermelons, but apparent when shooting paper.

It takes a very long time for the barrel to cool though. So making 1 shot every 5 seconds isn't going to make follow-up shots the same accuracy as the first cold shot. However long it takes it to get back to "room" temperature.

None of that is really noticeable or worth considering in an actual firefight.

If you're holding down the trigger, yah subsequent shots will be scattered. But the first will still be point of aim, same as if you only shot once.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The thing is the VAST majority of shooters aren't accurate enough that the M16s better accuracy means anything to them. If you have an army of draftees or even trained grunts they will do just fine with an AK47. And for the highly trained soldiers then you can give them more advanced weapons.

Meh. I wasn't a "highly trained" soldier, and I was probably somewhere near the 80th percentile for rifle shooters. I could do way more damage with an M16/M4.

Your post is laughable at best, the accuracy difference is enormous.

Actually, the part you quote is fairly accurate, at least with reference to untrained militias and Banana Republic militaries. If you were to hand a tribal grunt an M4 with a cleaning kit, how long do you think the M4 would continue to fire? By contrast, you can give that same ex-farmer from a small village an AK and at least have someone who can pull a trigger with a reasonable expectation of something coming out the muzzle, though perhaps not in the desired direction. 🙂

In comparison to most armed forces in the world (counting all the countries with a military, truly professional armed forces being among the exemptions), any member of the US military is highly trained.

lol true.. i don't think that's what he meant though.

 

[dloehr22]

i know first hand that an m-16 is a way better weapon in my opinion having shot both of them. AK is more powerful but only your first shot is accurate, after that you are spraying and praying and you have other weapons like the m249 and 50 cal. for shooting with "power". . the m-16 is very reliable, accurate, and has the burst or semi on it which allows you to shoot three rounds every time you pull the trigger and if you aim at the abdominol area you will put all three rounds in the chest. m-16 hands down over the ak 47

 

[rudder]

charlie is in the bushes! Well the vietcong knew the ak47 was better close up 40 years ago.

But for me I would still rather have the m16 (or m4). because I know we have the best damn air force in the world backing me up and they will be dropping boxes of ammo while my ak47 toting counterpart will have only what he can carry.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The thing is the VAST majority of shooters aren't accurate enough that the M16s better accuracy means anything to them. If you have an army of draftees or even trained grunts they will do just fine with an AK47. And for the highly trained soldiers then you can give them more advanced weapons.

dont squad designated marksmans use an M14 variant?

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: TallBill
M16 is a lot different then an M4.

Care to enlighten a real-life noob? 😉

M4 is shorter.

Doesn't it also have no automatic-fire mode, only burst-fire? Which I think is bullshit, since removing options is never a good thing.

M4's selective fire (TMK) is between full auto and single shot.

M16A2's selective fire is between burst fire and single shot. (it went that way because in vietnam, troops were spraying off full clips hitting nothing.)

M16A3's selective fire.. i dont know which it is. i think it's full auto, 3 round burst, and single shot.

 

[datalink7]

The M4 is a fine rifle. I would prefer it in combat over the AK.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Doesn't it also have no automatic-fire mode, only burst-fire? Which I think is bullshit, since removing options is never a good thing.

Well the problem is most troops aren't that highely educated so they just "spray and pray" and shoot off all their ammo way to quick. So they took full auto off the M16 so people actually take the time to aim instead of just shooting wildly. OF course the better soldiers can use full auto on the more "advanced" guns like the M4.

M16's never used to have auto either, only the M16A3 did. And currently still not have it. Auto isn't a good thing in a true rifle. That's why your squads have AR gunners (M249 SAW) 😀

on second though...M16A1 may have had auto, i'm not so well versed on the A1 though. A2 were used for a longer period than the A1, and A3's were but a short blip in history for the M16 line.

Originally posted by: Queasy
Aren't M16s also limited by what kind of bullet they can use? Militarily at least. If I understand correctly, even though the M16 uses smaller ammunition than the AK47, we aren't allowed to use a more destructive round like a hollow point.

welcome to NATO rules
no rifle the US will ever field will have anything but the NATO-size round (5.56mm)

bullshit. we field .308 for specialty uses. (designated marksman, sniper, etc)

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The thing is the VAST majority of shooters aren't accurate enough that the M16s better accuracy means anything to them. If you have an army of draftees or even trained grunts they will do just fine with an AK47. And for the highly trained soldiers then you can give them more advanced weapons.

dont squad designated marksmans use an M14 variant?

The Marines do....Army uses a purpose built M16 variant.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: adairusmc
When the Shit hits the fan it will be a lot easier to scrounge/take 5.56 ammo than it will for 7.62x39. Same goes for .308.

The M1a/M14 is trillion times better than both the AR and the AK combined though.

er... in an enclosed space, i'd hate to have a hugely unwieldy M14 over a light and highly maneuverable M4.

i'd vastly prefer the m14 over the m16, though. especially if you stick telescopic sights on it.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Works in a sense that you can still fire bullets while burning your hands? Nice durability\reliability there.

I understand what you are saying but in what real world scenario could anybody consider that reliable to have your weapon burst into flames when using it?

I'd also like to know if it was useable after that fire or if the weapon was shot.

Are you really trying to argue against the reliability of the AK-47? What rock have you been living under?

I mean, it's true that the video doesn't really prove anything, but the FACTS are that it's a very reliable gun.

MN FTW😉

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: adairusmc
When the Shit hits the fan it will be a lot easier to scrounge/take 5.56 ammo than it will for 7.62x39. Same goes for .308.

The M1a/M14 is trillion times better than both the AR and the AK combined though.

er... in an enclosed space, i'd hate to have a hugely unwieldy M14 over a light and highly maneuverable M4.

i'd vastly prefer the m14 over the m16, though. especially if you stick telescopic sights on it.

a la m-21?

 

[Tiamat]

None, the Sig SG552 rules! 🙂

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The thing is the VAST majority of shooters aren't accurate enough that the M16s better accuracy means anything to them. If you have an army of draftees or even trained grunts they will do just fine with an AK47. And for the highly trained soldiers then you can give them more advanced weapons.

dont squad designated marksmans use an M14 variant?

The Marines do....Army uses a purpose built M16 variant.

Army uses the M-14 as well.