AK47 vs. M16
First Prev
of 24
Next Last
Valkyrian Ride

Murfreesboro, TN

#1 Jul 11, 2007
AK47

“Searching for the True America”

Since: Jan 07

Dallas

#2 Jul 11, 2007
This is a subject of great interest to me. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Valkyrian Ride

Murfreesboro, TN

#3 Jul 11, 2007
Bubba Lost in America wrote:
This is a subject of great interest to me. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Which weapon would you rather have if you were caught in a firefight?

“Searching for the True America”

Since: Jan 07

Dallas

#4 Jul 11, 2007
Well I have an AK. What about the other one.
Polecat in South Florida

United States

#5 Jul 11, 2007
Valkyrian Ride wrote:
<quoted text> Which weapon would you rather have if you were caught in a firefight?
M-16. Lighter ammo means I'm probably carrying about 350 rounds; double-and-a-half load = combat load.
I can lay down more fire and more rounds going out than coming in = fire supression. More rounds going out also = more likelihood of scoring a hit.
The AK is a fiercesome weapon, but just as in a barroom brawl; beware the guy thar's a Flyweight Champ; he'll 'clean your clock' for you with speed and agility.

“Waiting for the "Rapture"”

Since: Apr 07

Orefield

#6 Jul 11, 2007
Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either one of them. The AK has a 125 grain bullet compared to the M-16 (about half the weight --- about 55 grains) The M-16 may have the edge on accuracy, however it is said that the AK functions better in adverse conditions, and not subject to jamming.

“Waiting for the "Rapture"”

Since: Apr 07

Orefield

#7 Jul 11, 2007
Shot placement is more important than spraying the whole area with ammo. The Afghans kicked Russia out of Afghanistan with antiquated bolt-action rifles (and maybe some help from USA providing shoulder-fired missles to bring down aircraft)
Polecat in South Florida

United States

#8 Jul 11, 2007
The M-16 has gone through many changes and is very reliable in almost all conditions.
All of Viet Nam was an adverse condition and as the weapon improved, the number of malfunctions reduced.
My 3 tours covered from '66 to '72 and I saw the progression of the weapon first hand.
Also, I operated from deep in the Mekong Delta on up to the central highlands and the latter version of the weapon worked fine.
The weapon has been around a long time and it's one thing that I don't hear many complaints about.

“Are You Kiddin Me?”

Since: Jan 07

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

#9 Jul 11, 2007
I have an AR-15(M16 variant), my father has an MAK90(AK-47 variant), I have fired both many many times.
They both have their good and bad points.
The AK in comparission to the M16 is terribly inaccurate.
But there is no question that the AK is more durable than the M16, although the M16 has gone through many improvements throughout the years and has turned into a very durable rifle itself.
As far as ammo, the 5.56 is faster, accurate and has a longer range due to its weight. The 7.62 packs more punch at closer range.
But right now the 5.56 or .223 ammo is very expensive and hard to find in bulk due to the lack of military surplus. The 7.62 is still kinda widely availiable and reasonably priced.
But, all in all if I had to be in a firefight, I would choose the M16 due to its accuracy, and typically because the 5.56 is so much lighter than the 7.62 you can carry many more rounds on your person.
Just be sure to bring earplugs with you if you plan on firing several mags out of the M16 , because that sucker is FREAKIN LOUD!!
Bobby Drake at Work

Jacksonville, NC

#10 Jul 11, 2007
Depends. the AK47 shoots a bigger round (7.62 nato)but lacks long distance accuacy. and because the internal parts of an AK47 are more spaced out than the M16, in sand and mud, it jams less. It can be shot fully automatic too. so if i was fighting room to room, i'd pick the AK because it's capable of shooting off more rounds with knockdown power.

M16s are more accurate, and even though the round is smaller (5.56 nato), the projectile is designed to ricochet off of bones (tear ur body up). so if the enemy isn't knocked down, he's still gonna feel it. the M16 is also lighter and because it only has a semi and 3 round burst option, it doesn't eat up ammo. the M16A4 and A2 has more accessories (scopes M203 granade launcher, etc). so if i was fighting in anything other than room to room, i'd pick the M-16.

“Waiting for the "Rapture"”

Since: Apr 07

Orefield

#11 Jul 11, 2007
Polecat in South Florida wrote:
The M-16 has gone through many changes and is very reliable in almost all conditions.
All of Viet Nam was an adverse condition and as the weapon improved, the number of malfunctions reduced.
My 3 tours covered from '66 to '72 and I saw the progression of the weapon first hand.
Also, I operated from deep in the Mekong Delta on up to the central highlands and the latter version of the weapon worked fine.
The weapon has been around a long time and it's one thing that I don't hear many complaints about.
Ten-four on that! The refinements to the Colt have put it above the Garand or M-16 for accuracy at Camp Perry competition.

“Waiting for the "Rapture"”

Since: Apr 07

Orefield

#12 Jul 11, 2007
Sorry!! I meant to say: M-14

“$28,000,000 a nice start!”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13 Jul 11, 2007
It makes me sad when I read some posts. Unfortunately, the mentality has gone to "spray and pray."

But if I had to choose, I'd take the M-16. The 5.56 while smaller is very accurate out to about 300 yards. Beyond that you are at the mercy of the wind. The AK-47 has poor accuracy but the ballistic coefficcient of the round will carry more energy at long range.

Bottom line, there is no perfect weapon. There are however, many weapons which are better than the M-16 and the AK-47.

“Searching for the True America”

Since: Jan 07

Dallas

#14 Jul 11, 2007
If you fellows were starting a revolutionary group, which of these two weapons would you choose.
Valkyrian Ride

Murfreesboro, TN

#15 Jul 11, 2007
Bobby Drake at Work wrote:
Depends. the AK47 shoots a bigger round (7.62 nato)but lacks long distance accuacy. and because the internal parts of an AK47 are more spaced out than the M16, in sand and mud, it jams less. It can be shot fully automatic too. so if i was fighting room to room, i'd pick the AK because it's capable of shooting off more rounds with knockdown power.
M16s are more accurate, and even though the round is smaller (5.56 nato), the projectile is designed to ricochet off of bones (tear ur body up). so if the enemy isn't knocked down, he's still gonna feel it. the M16 is also lighter and because it only has a semi and 3 round burst option, it doesn't eat up ammo. the M16A4 and A2 has more accessories (scopes M203 granade launcher, etc). so if i was fighting in anything other than room to room, i'd pick the M-16.
So you and I see eye to eye on one thing (finally)

“Waiting for the "Rapture"”

Since: Apr 07

Orefield

#16 Jul 11, 2007
Bubba Lost in America wrote:
If you fellows were starting a revolutionary group, which of these two weapons would you choose.
Penterithitoltetranitrate or trinitrotoluene
Polecat in South Florida

United States

#17 Jul 11, 2007
First, the M-16s we used had a full-auto selector. Having said that, I'd take what was called the XM; M-16 with a grenade launcher attached underneath.
The enemy couldn't quite tell where that 'thump' came from when the launcher was used. Same as when they used the little 60mm mortar that they strapped on their leg and fired from a genuflecting position. Then they ran to another location and fired again. Yup, that 'thump' might get them just from causing heart failure; sure scared the piss outa me!
Bobby Drake at Work

Fredericksburg, VA

#18 Jul 11, 2007
Valkyrian Ride wrote:
<quoted text> So you and I see eye to eye on one thing (finally)
Guns bring people together lol.
georgia pride

Kingston, GA

#19 Jul 11, 2007
I carried an M-16 in Vietnam in daily combat. It's an outstanding weapon. The shock waves do more damage on impact than the bullet does. Keep the dust cover closed to keep the dirt out. A plastic cap over the end of the barrel keeps out water. I could fire my M-16 one handed like a pistol. You can't do that with an AK. I do keep an AK for home defense. If you need to fire through walls or floors the AK has a big advantage. Other than that choose the M-16. I could shoot the nose right off Bubba with an M-16. It's that accurate. If you plan to carry a rifle all day, choose the M-16. It's lighter and the ammo is much lighter.
EASY MONEY

Bangkok, Thailand

#20 Jul 11, 2007
Bubba Lost in America wrote:
If you fellows were starting a revolutionary group, which of these two weapons would you choose.
Lets see, what is the age of your group and how well are they educated? If they are young and stupid then give them a AK but if they are older and educated the M-16 would be better. I hope that helps Bubba.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 24
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min Hidingfromyou 877,307
Gay sex in raigarh 10 min Nikhil 50 29
girls how many gangbangs have you had (Feb '15) 10 min spelliccia 13
Getting the urge to get intimate with my dog 26 min Bettsy 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 52 min Neville Thompson 272,823
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 55 min Neville Thompson 41,121
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Doctor Justice_ 7,889
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 hr Kamal 7,610
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr RoSesz 603,092
The Christian Atheist debate 4 hr Critical Eye 3,775
More from around the web