YAGT

[Teliasen]

The AK47 is cheap to make and is a bit more durable, but the M16A1 has a better long-range accuracy and is lighter.

 

[Schadenfroh]

AK47, bigger bullet, more realiable, 10 more shots before having to reload, cheaper, better looking, probably could find parts for it around the world easier than the M16A1

 

[her209]

By far, the AK47.

 

[bandana163]

The AK47 will win.
Are you going to get one?

 

[bradruth]

M16. Aside from the jamming, it is otherwise more reliable as a combat weapon.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but is RPG2 and RPG7 ammo interchangeable? out of curiosity

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: bradruth
M16. Aside from the jamming, it is otherwise more reliable as a combat weapon.

Reliable? Compared to an AK, the M16A1 is as unreliable as they come. Frequent jamming, requires constant maintenance, etc., whereas an AK can be burried in sand for 5 years, then be picked up and fired without any maintenance whatsoever.

 

[Anubis]

most def the AK47 thoes things are tanks

and you can prob get one for less then 100$ in some shady places

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: bradruth
M16. Aside from the jamming, it is otherwise more reliable as a combat weapon.

Reliable? Compared to an AK, the M16A1 is as unreliable as they come. Frequent jamming, requires constant maintenance, etc., whereas an AK can be burried in sand for 5 years, then be picked up and fired without any maintenance whatsoever.

But they're so wildly inaccurate. Perhaps reliable wasn't the best term, but I'd rather have an accurate rifle that needs maintanance than a spray & pray rifle that I can bury.

 

[dudeguy]

all round its obviously the ak-47, but most people wouldnt be in all-round situations.

out of interest did any westerners in iraq get killed by a jammed weapon?

 

[konakona]

when i tried m16a1's i realized how easy those things were to hit with, much easier than i thought. then again, that was with some tenacious concetration in prone position. a sarge from special forces told us thats not the way things go in real wars (note : not a special force operation, a full scale war with a bunch of fresh out of boot camp novices) ; rather, its more like only the unlucky ones get hit by stray bullets

 

[Schadenfroh]

the a1s are still in service today?

 

[Brutuskend]

It would depend largely on WHERE the AK came from, They were made in a lot of different countries and some were better than others. The AK was also a LOT better for bashing in close quarter combat.

 

[vi edit]

AK ignores armor and works great for taking down VIP's.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
the a1s are still in service today?

not in the US military as far as i know.

AK ignores armor and works great for taking down VIP's.

an obligatory CS remark i see i take m4 anyday... much more accurate from far away/while moving/jumping, full auto actually works for close range.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
the a1s are still in service today?

not in the US military as far as i know.

AK ignores armor and works great for taking down VIP's.

an obligatory CS remark i see i take m4 anyday... much more accurate from far away/while moving/jumping, full auto actually works for close range.

I'm an M4 whore in CS too. Doesn't matter the map, that's my gun-o-choice.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
the a1s are still in service today?

not in the US military as far as i know.

AK ignores armor and works great for taking down VIP's.

an obligatory CS remark i see i take m4 anyday... much more accurate from far away/while moving/jumping, full auto actually works for close range.

I'm an M4 whore in CS too. Doesn't matter the map, that's my gun-o-choice.

Yeah I also go for M4. But snipers tend to go for AKs, which averages 3 shots instead of 4 for the colt in terms of taking down someone.

 

[imported_Bishop]

M16A3 in all situations other than CQB, then I'll take the M4A1. The 5.56x45 shoots flatter, weighs less, and wounds better than the 7.62x39, the rifle is more accurate, and the reliability issue is just a myth (most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well.). My friends platoon ran their rifles dry for two weeks without a single jam.

The AK-47 has inferior ergonomics, less accuracy, and more weight. The IDF (Israeli Defense Force), the only military agency to use both weapons on the field in a large scale, chose the M16 as the superior weapon as it exceeds the AK-47 in versatility, weight, and accuracy. It all boils down to your opinion, but I choose the M16.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Bishop
M16A3 in all situations other than CQB, then I'll take the M4A1. The 5.56x45 shoots flatter, weighs less, and wounds better than the 7.62x39, the rifle is more accurate, and the reliability issue is just a myth (most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well.). My friends platoon ran their rifles dry for two weeks without a single jam.

The AK-47 has inferior ergonomics, less accuracy, and more weight. The IDF (Israeli Defense Force), the only military agency to use both weapons on the field in a large scale, chose the M16 as the superior weapon as it exceeds the AK-47 in versatility, weight, and accuracy. It all boils down to your opinion, but I choose the M16.

valid points there, but the OP specifically mentioned m16A1

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: Bishop
M16A3 in all situations other than CQB, then I'll take the M4A1. The 5.56x45 shoots flatter, weighs less, and wounds better than the 7.62x39, the rifle is more accurate, and the reliability issue is just a myth (most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well.). My friends platoon ran their rifles dry for two weeks without a single jam.

The AK-47 has inferior ergonomics, less accuracy, and more weight. The IDF (Israeli Defense Force), the only military agency to use both weapons on the field in a large scale, chose the M16 as the superior weapon as it exceeds the AK-47 in versatility, weight, and accuracy. It all boils down to your opinion, but I choose the M16.

valid points there, but the OP specifically mentioned m16A1

I wouldn't see why anyone would compare the 47 to the A1. Maybe he's just confused or doesn't realize there's an A2/3/4.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Bishop
M16A3 in all situations other than CQB, then I'll take the M4A1. The 5.56x45 shoots flatter, weighs less, and wounds better than the 7.62x39, the rifle is more accurate, and the reliability issue is just a myth (most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well.). My friends platoon ran their rifles dry for two weeks without a single jam.

The AK-47 has inferior ergonomics, less accuracy, and more weight. The IDF (Israeli Defense Force), the only military agency to use both weapons on the field in a large scale, chose the M16 as the superior weapon as it exceeds the AK-47 in versatility, weight, and accuracy. It all boils down to your opinion, but I choose the M16.

Oh where oh where to start........

It does shoot flatter. The wieght is a difference of 1 or 2 pounds AND depends on the model. Comparing the heaviest of AK's to the lightest of M16's isnt really all that fair now is it?
It doesnt "wound better", it has a different wound channel. That wound channel is a function of bullet speed, allowing the bullet to fragment. No fragment, no wounding. In order to get good consistent muzzle velocity to get your wounding you need a longer barrel. The shorties are worth dick for this. Also, the 7.62 is no slouch at all for wounding. It's a bigger bullet that also tumbles /opens nicely.
More accurate? Heres 2 little secrets everyone always seems to forget. The difference between a 1" and a 2" 100 yard group is STILL a dead man!! You realize the humen chest is roughly the size of a sheet of paper....say 8"x11". You'd have to have a rfile that literally had no barrel to not be able to put rounds on target at 100 yards. And dont bother bringingup the 500 yard mark, the 5.56 doesnt retain enough velocity after about 200-300 yards to reliably fragment anymore. Secondly, in combat situations the difference between 1" and 2" groups means nothing, becuase the shooter wont see the difference unless he's an extremely combat hardened individual. Its hard to take advantage of 1" more in accuracy when your running, being shot at, looking for cover and taking snapshots at enemies.
The M16 *is* more unreliable. It alwasy has been. Why do you think the military wants a new rifle? Because the gas system on the M16 sucks. I've never heard of a war where GI's werent complaining of their rifles jamming. Case in point, the current conflict. Remember the stories of GI's rifles jamming? Yeah, nuff said on that topic. The AK *is* more reliable. Its shoots when you hit the go button.

So, I wouldnt rule the M16 as the king just yet. Its VERY situation independant. It seems theres more then a few GI's who are most unhappy with the weapon. And there using it where it counts most, not at the range but on the battlefield.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
It would depend largely on WHERE the AK came from, They were made in a lot of different countries and some were better than others. The AK was also a LOT better for bashing in close quarter combat.

This is a very important point.

The Finnish Valmet rifles and the Israeli Galil both utilize the Kalashnikov action and are highly regarded in terms of accuracy and reliability.

 

[imported_Bishop]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Oh where oh where to start........

It does shoot flatter. The wieght is a difference of 1 or 2 pounds AND depends on the model. Comparing the heaviest of AK's to the lightest of M16's isnt really all that fair now is it?
It doesnt "wound better", it has a different wound channel. That wound channel is a function of bullet speed, allowing the bullet to fragment. No fragment, no wounding. In order to get good consistent muzzle velocity to get your wounding you need a longer barrel. The shorties are worth dick for this. Also, the 7.62 is no slouch at all for wounding. It's a bigger bullet that also tumbles /opens nicely.
More accurate? Heres 2 little secrets everyone always seems to forget. The difference between a 1" and a 2" 100 yard group is STILL a dead man!! You realize the humen chest is roughly the size of a sheet of paper....say 8"x11". You'd have to have a rfile that literally had no barrel to not be able to put rounds on target at 100 yards. And dont bother bringingup the 500 yard mark, the 5.56 doesnt retain enough velocity after about 200-300 yards to reliably fragment anymore. Secondly, in combat situations the difference between 1" and 2" groups means nothing, becuase the shooter wont see the difference unless he's an extremely combat hardened individual. Its hard to take advantage of 1" more in accuracy when your running, being shot at, looking for cover and taking snapshots at enemies.
The M16 *is* more unreliable. It alwasy has been. Why do you think the military wants a new rifle? Because the gas system on the M16 sucks. I've never heard of a war where GI's werent complaining of their rifles jamming. Case in point, the current conflict. Remember the stories of GI's rifles jamming? Yeah, nuff said on that topic. The AK *is* more reliable. Its shoots when you hit the go button.

So, I wouldnt rule the M16 as the king just yet. Its VERY situation independant. It seems theres more then a few GI's who are most unhappy with the weapon. And there using it where it counts most, not at the range but on the battlefield.

1.) I was talking about the weight of the ammo, not the actual gun.
2.) Fact and point, the 5.56 wounds better, yes better, than the 7.62 up to 180 meters, at which point the capacity and mechanisms are equal to the 7.62.
3.) 1" difference doesn't matter? What of you miss an arm by an inch...I think that matters. Every bit of accuracy matters.
4.) Sure the AK is more reliable, I'm not arguing that. However, a properly maintained M16 will shoot when you need it to, though the sand is a new terrain for it.

You can choose the AK, I can choose the M16.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Bishop
1.) I was talking about the weight of the ammo, not the actual gun.
2.) Fact and point, the 5.56 wounds better, yes better, than the 7.62 up to 180 meters, at which point the capacity and mechanisms are equal to the 7.62.
3.) 1" difference doesn't matter? What of you miss an arm by an inch...I think that matters. Every bit of accuracy matters.
4.) Sure the AK is more reliable, I'm not arguing that. However, a properly maintained M16 will shoot when you need it to, though the sand is a new terrain for it.

You can choose the AK, I can choose the M16.

1) Thought you meatn the gun.
2) Unless you go with an M4, in which case your looking at 50-75 yards. And thats assuming you have current fragmenting ammo. Some 5.56 ammo doesnt fragment well if at all.
3) No, not at all. Aim center mass, and either 1" or 2" hole is right smack dab in the chest. You can go all the way up to a 4" group and STILL be right smack dab in the chest. So no, in a combat situation that 1 or 2 inch difference in optimal group size means nothing.
4) Agreed

 

[Czar]

I'd pick the ak47, but thats because I'm lazy and would forget to clean the thing