Ak-47 vs. M-16

Originally posted by WeBDeviL

Im trying to get through you hold down the trigger and there is no pump action involved..is this what you mean by semi-auto?

-wD

fully auto means you hold down the trigger and you empty the clip......semi auto is like a hand gun,yes there is no pumping thats what i said,it is selective fire which means you have a choice between pumping or semi auto,you dont just hold the trigger down,you can fire 1 shot each time you pull the trigger

cant argue with this 1


[Edited on 11-17-2003 by sirCyco]

Originally posted by sirCyco
cant argue with this 1

[Edited on 11-17-2003 by sirCyco]

please take that m16 out of the pic!

I'd take the AK47 any day of the week. As for any accuracy problems...pffft, half the problems lay not in the rifle but the one who shoulders it. Accuracy has not been a problem for me with either the 47 or the 16...but then I was hunting since soon after I could walk.

I have had very few problems with AKs and their variants in comparison to the 16s and their variants. The AK is no show-pony, it ain't fancy, it just cranks all day every day without all the fuss and glory...just what you need when things get down and dirty *literally*



Peace,
ALIEN

Originally posted by alien
I'd take the AK47 any day of the week. As for any accuracy problems...pffft, half the problems lay not in the rifle but the one who shoulders it. Accuracy has not been a problem for me with either the 47 or the 16...but then I was hunting since soon after I could walk.

I have had very few problems with AKs and their variants in comparison to the 16s and their variants. The AK is no show-pony, it ain't fancy, it just cranks all day every day without all the fuss and glory...just what you need when things get down and dirty *literally*



Peace,
ALIEN

Nicely said.

The AKs are known about their durabilty and thats what

counts the most when you get on it!

Ok if there is nothing else to say about the m-16 or the AK-47 then this post it closed.
Please dont post if you have nothing to say about m16 or the ak47.
Thank You

...about the only issues I found with the AK was the magazine shape/placement and more importantly the length of extension from the body of the rifle...made it hellishly hard to get lower to the ground for a smaller profile when stalking game...stalking humans would be a similar issue. Of course merely changing to a smaller capacity mag is an obvious option, but still...factory for factory the 16 had a better prone firing 'feel' to it...

Though the best similar rifle I've used extensively for hunting and lugging around the bush is a militarised SKS variant...with custom capacity clips. Usual hunting clip was a 12-rounder...always kept a nice custom 50-round clip just for those 'rip off some rounds' kinda moods...never know when a pesky tree might leap out and try to accost you, requiring rapid deployment of a large amount of lead in its general direction

[Edited on 18-11-2003 by alien]

AK no doubt, more reliable bigger round. But then again it really depends on the battle. Different guns for different scenarios. Personally im a big fan of the M4 or the SR-15/16. Thats what I would go with probably.

Originally posted by alien
...about the only issues I found with the AK was the magazine shape/placement and more importantly the length of extension from the body of the rifle...made it hellishly hard to get lower to the ground for a smaller profile when stalking game...stalking humans would be a similar issue. Of course merely changing to a smaller capacity mag is an obvious option, but still...factory for factory the 16 had a better prone firing 'feel' to it...

Though the best similar rifle I've used extensively for hunting and lugging around the bush is a militarised SKS variant...with custom capacity clips. Usual hunting clip was a 12-rounder...always kept a nice custom 50-round clip just for those 'rip off some rounds' kinda moods...never know when a pesky tree might leap out and try to accost you, requiring rapid deployment of a large amount of lead in its general direction

[Edited on 18-11-2003 by alien]

Yes the AK-47 has a longer mag.

But you can go as low as you want if you turn the AK-47
a little side ways. It will still shoot and you will be low
on the ground.

It is also true the M-16 has a better prone postion because of its smaller mag.

But weapons are not graded on how low you can go you can go with it.

I held a AK-47 and fired one. They do have some recoil but this all can be fixed with a bigger person and some brains.

If you are a light weight person with no muscular power you might have some problems with handling a AK-47. That when you have to stick with a M-16. But my friends and I are not any where close to lieght weight people. I also had some practice with a AK-47. So it is pretty easy for me to shoot a AK-47.

You could feel the power in a AK-47. Comparing to a M-16 which feels just to under powered cause there is little recoil.(comparing to a AK-47)

I do know that its better to have less recoil but if you pratice with a AK-47 you will be very accurite with it and when you try a M-16 after AK-47 you will have a hard time making it into a target because the AK-47 has a way different feel to it comparing to a M-16. Also after a AK-47 you tend to pull down a little cause you are used to the AK-47 recoil. But with a M-16 if you pull down on it like on the AK-47 then it goes down and you miss your target.

So all is all I think AK-47 is better in power, feel, mag load,etc. M-16 just might be better in accuracy but I am used to the more recoil so therefore I am not very accurate with the M-16.

Since I worked in the Spec Ops section of the USAF, I like the tactical HK MP5 SD2 myself, I like it because its compact, has an integral sound surpressor, and great for close quarter fighting.

For the question posed, I'd go with the M-16. Accuracy is the key to success. It is also lighter and less recoil. You can place a better grouping with an M-16 especially when shooting for centre mass and headshots at distance, more so than the AK. I'd sooner have a gun with better accuracy because it make my job easier plugging my bullets in the head or other vital areas (i.e. the heart)

[Edited on 11-18-2003 by Cearbhall]

I would use this one if I had to choose a sniper weapons. It's not quite different than the svd series... But it is a lot lighter.

British L1A1 SLR - license built "inch pattern" FN FAL with SUIT optical sight




[Edited on 18-11-2003 by Salem]

These will be some last questions for the thread.

Which weapon(AK-47 or M-16) has a better history?

Ok...look...i'll put it this way...

The colt is the better gun, simply put because it's more accurate and has less recoil. How do i know? Becausei and thouasands of other splay CS and the colt is the prefered weapon out of the AK...simply put...we all know it's the better gun.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Ok...look...i'll put it this way...

The colt is the better gun, simply put because it's more accurate and has less recoil. How do i know? Becausei and thouasands of other splay CS and the colt is the prefered weapon out of the AK...simply put...we all know it's the better gun.

Well... in real life...

It's true that the M16 is better, the fact that you have bigger rounds is not an avantage, just read one of my earlier posts... I never used a m16 or a ak47... But I have used a C7a1. ( Superior version of the m16 done by Diameco in Canada, used by Canada infantry and also by Danish and Netherland infantry )

Effective range for the m16 is 300 metres, that's the *standart* range. But it doesn't mean that you can't hit a target at a higher range, I hit frequently pratice target with my c7a1 at 600 metres while one of my friend is capable at 800 metres. You can't do that with a ak47, the effective range is of 150 metres.

But that's my opinion.

ak47 or m-16 i think i would choose a P-90.

Originally posted by tealc
ak47 or m-16 i think i would choose a P-90.

Good old belgian weapons hein ?

Do you know that sweden use modified version of belgian weapons ? here's my favorite :


Bofors AK5B - "scoped" version


[Edited on 18-11-2003 by Salem]

Originally posted by Russian
Yes the AK-47 has a longer mag.

But you can go as low as you want if you turn the AK-47
a little side ways. It will still shoot and you will be low
on the ground.

It is also true the M-16 has a better prone postion because of its smaller mag.

But weapons are not graded on how low you can go you can go with it.

...yes, you can turn the rifle sideways to get a parallel position, but in doing so you also throw out the 'balance' of the rifle and place your upper-arm (in particular the deltoid) in a less stable firing position, which can impede upon accuracy if you are waiting for the just the right time to crack a shot . The recoil of the AK47, when fired prone and sideways, causes the rifle to actually 'twist/pivot' in your hands, as you aren't shouldering it in the manner the stock was designed for (so it has a tendency to slip off your shoulder), or holding it in the way the foregrip was designed...and so the recoil is not going directly into the shoulder or offset by the hand position on the foregrip. Yes...you may suspect I've ripped off more than a few mags from a prone sideways position

Weapons are graded on what each person uses them for...I use them for hunting...as such a lower 'silhouette' found in a prone position is preferable for my needs.

I held a AK-47 and fired one. They do have some recoil but this all can be fixed with a bigger person and some brains.

If you are a light weight person with no muscular power you might have some problems with handling a AK-47. That when you have to stick with a M-16. But my friends and I are not any where close to lieght weight people. I also had some practice with a AK-47. So it is pretty easy for me to shoot a AK-47.

Light weight with no muscular power = complete opposite to me Yup...ain't a small lad by any means I also prefer the raw power and the 'feel' of the AK over the M16.

I also prefer the ease of field-strip with the 47 over the 16...the 16 is just too finicky, that rear spring is too damn fiddly and tempremental at times...does not like any grit or mud in its workings. I was forever cleaning down the action with WD40 after returning to camp at night in the bush...it didn't like being mushed into the mud as I slide down banks and stuff out in the bush...didn't like it no-siree-bob. Whereas with the 47 its a case of unclip, flip, slip, strip and thats it. I oiled it down before heading into the bush...maybe gave it a strip down to check it once or twice...but it never really needed any cleaning as such that couldn't wait till I got home after a hunting trip.

Accuracy is something I hear often when it comes to these comparisons between the 47 and the 16...and like I said before, accuracy is often more determined by the one who shoulders the rifle than the rifles design. That said...most engagements, even during hunting game, are done at relatively close quarters...very rarely are you performing any 300 yard skill-shots, in which case I use a telescopic anyway...normally, with hunting, you stalk close in to the game, your shot is rarely made across great distances...the average distance (in my hunting experience) is only in the region of 30-40 metres...often less. Engagements in battle are often in a similar vein...so if you can't hit your target from 30 metres away with a highpowered semi/full auto then I wouldn't be too quick to blame the rifle.



Peace,
ALIEN



[Edited on 19-11-2003 by alien]

Originally posted by alien

Accuracy is something I hear often when it comes to these comparisons between the 47 and the 16...and like I said before, accuracy is often more determined by the one who shoulders the rifle than the rifles design. That said...most engagements, even during hunting game, are done at relatively close quarters...very rarely are you performing any 300 yard skill-shots, in which case I use a telescopic anyway...normally, with hunting, you stalk close in to the game, your shot is rarely made across great distances...the average distance (in my hunting experience) is only in the region of 30-40 metres...often less. Engagements in battle are often in a similar vein...so if you can't hit your target from 30 metres away with a highpowered semi/full auto then I wouldn't be too quick to blame the rifle.

Peace,
ALIEN

Good point Alien.

Most combats in war do happen in close range.

Unless you are stupid enough to try snipe with an AK-47


Most comabats are in the BONNIES or HOUSE TO HOUSE.

So it is not MORE then 75 meters.

And with that distance almost anybody can make it in to a enemy with a AK-47.

Originally posted by alien
Light weight with no muscular power = complete opposite to me

Yup...ain't a small lad by any means

I also prefer the raw power and the 'feel' of the AK over the M16.

I also prefer the ease of field-strip with the 47 over the 16...the 16 is just too finicky, that rear spring is too damn fiddly and tempremental at times...does not like any grit or mud in its workings. I was forever cleaning down the action with WD40 after returning to camp at night in the bush...it didn't like being mushed into the mud as I slide down banks and stuff out in the bush...didn't like it no-siree-bob. Whereas with the 47 its a case of unclip, flip, slip, strip and thats it. I oiled it down before heading into the bush...maybe gave it a strip down to check it once or twice...but it never really needed any cleaning as such that couldn't wait till I got home after a hunting trip.


Peace,
ALIEN



[Edited on 19-11-2003 by alien]

I must agree that AK-47 is way easier that clean and maintain.

On the other hand M-16 needs to be cleaned throghly ever shot or so!

I dont think anybody disagrees with that AK-47 is better

and easier to clean and maintain. Also the AK-47 has a

better history on it combats and effeciency.

I clean my C7a1 one time a day, it takes me between
1:30 to 2:30 minutes. I disagree that the AK47 is better, AK47 is used by all poor third world countries for the unique reason that it is a cheap weapon. The 75 m of effectivness make it totally useless in 75% of battle situation. I could take out your entire squad at 700m with my scoped version of m16 and you couldn't even shot once.

[Edited on 20-11-2003 by Salem]