M16 vs. Ak47

M16 cause it's american.

M16 is much more reliable and accurate.

What do you think is better? I think the M16 is because it has some accuracy, where with the Ak you can't hit the side of a barn.mr_poodles123

AK-47 for me for the reliability, the last thing you need is your gun to jam in a fight. The AK is accurate with the first round but the barrel flops wildly after that in auto fire, im more a fan of semi-auto though.

Plus it just looks badass.

i dont really care.

The people's rifle. Mainly due to its reliability. But does depend entirely on where abouts you are. I mean, in a modern combat situation, with range the M-16 is the superior weapon, shooting something close up AK would be the best choice.

For it's reliability and practicality, the AK-47. For example, If I had a wilderness property in Alaska and I need a gun to defend myself from wild animals, I would rather the AK as it's less susceptible to degradation and cold. In a modern warfare scenario though, the M16 by far. PerilousWolf

M16 for accuracy but they did a test with the M4 (similar to M16) and AK and dropped both of them in mud and the M4 couldn't fire and the Ak did.

M16 is much more reliable and accurate.

bangell99

accurate: yes

reliable: see Vietnam war

Now, from what Ive read they have fixed the reliability issues in the m16 for the most part. There was also a great show on the history channel iirc comparing the two guns, they even got the two designers (Stoner for the m16, Kalachnikov for the ak) together and let them shoot eachother's guns. As I remember Kalachnikov absolutely hated the smaller 5.56 bullet and was disgusted with the new AK (the AK-101 iirc). Sorry for butchering the guy's name

The AK, however, has remained relatively unchanged from a technical standpoint, and thats likely because of its reliability. Sand, dirt, dust, gunpowder residue...never stopped the AK.

My vote goes to the m16 in its current incarnation; light, accurate, and powerful enough. You just dont need a big 7.62 bullet the AK uses to get the job done...especially when its accurate out to hundreds of yards

AK was more of a work of genius in its time than the M16, thus the AK for me.

Well I never fired an M16 or AK47 so can't say anything.

The only winning move is not to play.duxup

Wargames quote?

M16 for me, why? Because it looks cooler :P

This is a fiercely debated topic among gun owners and has been for some time. The ak-47 for all intents and purposes is one of the most revolutionaly firearms ever developed. The ingenuity of its design (for its time)is only rivaled by the M1 Garand, which was called "the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man" by General Patton. Anyway, both weapons have strong points and weak points that dictate why one would choose one over another. A quick google search will list both weapons strengths and weaknesses. I actually own one of each (both are obviously only semi-automatic). My AK-47 was made in Romania in 1985. Wood stocks and a stamped reciever make it pretty common and it looks like the typical ak-47. My M-16 is actually the semi automatic civilian model which are reffered to as the AR-15. It was manufactured by Bushmaster in 2008. It has a 16" barrel, 1:9 twist, iron and optical sights. There are definately situations where I would choose one over another. The AK is the kinda gun that can be soaked in mud for days and still go boom when you pull the triger. The bigger 7.62X39 (AK)round has more stopping power to it but drops way quicker than the 5.56X45 (AR) once the bullet crosses the 75 yd mark. The AR-15 on the other hand needs to be kept relatively clean for it to function properly but is FAR more accurate at 100+ yards than the AK. If I ever showed up at one of the high power matches I shoot in with an AK I would definately catch a few stares. All in all, because I keep my firearms in pristine condition both are fine pieces to my collection. However, If I had to choose one that I couldn't live without it would be my AR-15.

[QUOTE="duxup"]The only winning move is not to play.Gamerz1569

Wargames quote?

AK was more of a work of genius in its time than the M16, thus the AK for me.

Stashbash

are you sure?

From what I understood, the AK was essentially a beefier version of the StG44 (the German assault rifle, the first assault rifle iirc). It was made out of wood and soft, stamped metal. The working parts were strong, but loose, giving it reliability yet poor accuracy.

The m16 on the other hand was made from then-cutting-edge polymers, alloys, and stuff like that.

The way I see it, the AK is what a carpenter would build: elegant, rugged, reliable, and built to last.

The m16 is what an architect would build; fancy, high tech, delicate, and over-designed lol.

have fixed the reliability issues in the m16 for the most part. There was also a great show on the history channel iirc comparing the two guns, they even got the two designers (Stoner for the m16, Kalachnikov for the ak) together and let them shoot eachother's guns. As I remember Kalachnikov absolutely hated the smaller 5.56 bullet and was disgusted with the new AK (the AK-101 iirc). Sorry for butchering the guy's name

mrbojangles25

AK-74 ;)

I prefer the M16 due to ease of operation & familiarity thanks to past military service

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

have fixed the reliability issues in the m16 for the most part. There was also a great show on the history channel iirc comparing the two guns, they even got the two designers (Stoner for the m16, Kalachnikov for the ak) together and let them shoot eachother's guns. As I remember Kalachnikov absolutely hated the smaller 5.56 bullet and was disgusted with the new AK (the AK-101 iirc). Sorry for butchering the guy's name

tgrace

AK-74 ;)

lol thanks! Thats whatI meant

but there is an ak-101

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-101

So I suppose I was correct, though accidentally so lol

Sexy gun btw

lol thanks! Thats whatI meant

but there is an ak-101

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-101

So I suppose I was correct, though accidentally so lol

Sexy gun btw

mrbojangles25

Oh yea. No you are correct. The AK-101 is the newersynthetic model of the 74. I'm just old school and think of the 74 whenever I hear AK and 5.56 nato in the same sentence.

Depends what environment, for Citys with buildings and such M16 by a mile. walkingdream

For it's reliability and practicality, the AK-47. For example, If I had a wilderness property in Alaska and I need a gun to defend myself from wild animals, I would rather the AK as it's less susceptible to degradation and cold. In a modern warfare scenario though, the M16 by far. PerilousWolf

this tread made me wanne play Battlefield 2 XD *logs off from gamespot and starts playing BF2*

Having shot both, I'm much more comfortable shooting an M16.

M16 has superior accuracy at long range compared to the AK but the AK has far more power than the M16. The AK can be easily stripped and considered indestructible, I could post more but wont, but really they kind of weigh up equally imo.

To the experienced gun owners/users I have a question: In the hypothetical case of a zombie apocalypse which one would be preferred?clayron

well, if theyre slow zombies (a la Romero) then m16...put that baby on single shot and make headshots from a few hundred yards away.

If theyre fast, running zombies then I'd take the AK.

Though I dont know...the AK's bullet might be too big and create too much gore, thus resulting in infection if you get sprayed with blood up close.

[QUOTE="clayron"]To the experienced gun owners/users I have a question: In the hypothetical case of a zombie apocalypse which one would be preferred?mrbojangles25

well, if theyre slow zombies (a la Romero) then m16...put that baby on single shot and make headshots from a few hundred yards away.

If theyre fast, running zombies then I'd take the AK.

Though I dont know...the AK's bullet might be too big and create too much gore, thus resulting in infection if you get sprayed with blood up close.

Exactly.

[QUOTE="clayron"]To the experienced gun owners/users I have a question: In the hypothetical case of a zombie apocalypse which one would be preferred?mrbojangles25

well, if theyre slow zombies (a la Romero) then m16...put that baby on single shot and make headshots from a few hundred yards away.

If theyre fast, running zombies then I'd take the AK.

Though I dont know...the AK's bullet might be too big and create too much gore, thus resulting in infection if you get sprayed with blood up close.

I thought that would be answered pretty unanimously in favor of one or the other. Shows how much I know about guns. :P

The AK47 is a true soldier's rifle. It is also only as accurate as it needs to be. The M16 is effective out to 300 yards, while most of the time, the AK isn't used outside of 150. Plus, the AK can go through anything and come out firing. When the M16 was first introduced, it could be seized by a grain of sand in the bolt. And the AK uses a much larger bullet, so it carries heavier stopping power.

Plus, the gun competition these days is more between the M16A2 and AK-100 series. They are basically entirely different guns nowadays... only sharing similar bolt designs of their predecessors. Plus, the M16 is being thrown out for newer, much more technologically sound weapons like the HK 416 and FN SCAR.

The AK47 is a true soldier's rifle. It is also only as accurate as it needs to be. The M16 is effective out to 300 yards, while most of the time, the AK isn't used outside of 150. Plus, the AK can go through anything and come out firing. When the M16 was first introduced, it could be seized by a grain of sand in the bolt. And the AK uses a much larger bullet, so it carries heavier stopping power.

Plus, the gun competition these days is more between the M16A2 and AK-100 series. They are basically entirely different guns nowadays... only sharing similar bolt designs of their predecessors. Plus, the M16 is being thrown out for newer, much more technologically sound weapons like the HK 416 and FN SCAR.

foxhound_fox

Don't forget the TAVOR.

If the AK-47 is so damn durable why hasn't its designed been duplicated and improved upon? Or if it has why hasnt it replaced the Ak-47?

If the AK-47 is so damn durable why hasn't its designed been duplicated and improved upon? Or if it has why hasnt it replaced the Ak-47?

clayron

If the AK-47 is so damn durable why hasn't its designed been duplicated and improved upon? Or if it has why hasnt it replaced the Ak-47?

clayron

It has been...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kalashnikov_derivatives

Everyone has their own version. Plus, there are direct AK-brand improvements like the AK-74, AK-101 and AEK-971. The AK-47 hasn't been produced by the Russians since 1974.

AK, but you need to have serious aiming skills because after the second bullet, the recoil is too much.

You have to have serious aiming skills after the second bullet in any weapon, the M16 included. The M16's burst function is meant that, the first bullet hits the target, and the second/third have similar grouping but are spread out in case you're not exactly a crack shot. So you've a higher chance at hitting your target. The target is the focus, not pinpoint accuracy.AcronymnsFTW

But the M16 jams alot. You don't want that to happen in the middle of a firegfight.

The M16 is the superior weapon on every front save, maybe, reliability.

Even then, new models of the M16 can withstand some very serious punishment, and reliability alone isn't enough to even begin to make the AK-47 even stand a contest.

[QUOTE="clayron"]

If the AK-47 is so damn durable why hasn't its designed been duplicated and improved upon? Or if it has why hasnt it replaced the Ak-47?

foxhound_fox

It has been...


Everyone has their own version. Plus, there are direct AK-brand improvements like the AK-74, AK-101 and AEK-971. The AK-47 hasn't been produced by the Russians since 1974.

The M16 is the superior weapon on every front save, maybe, reliability.

Even then, new models of the M16 can withstand some very serious punishment, and reliability alone isn't enough to even begin to make the AK-47 even stand a contest.

-TheSecondSign-

In the end I would go with the AK, I am not very fond of either, since they both got flaws that I simply can not overlook.

The AK has very little moving parts, it is built to last (altho not as sturdy as people think, they really suck in cold areas due to the way theyre built), and spare parts are everywhere...

It is so easy to use a braindead chimp can wield it, and altho the bullet is way weaker then the 7.62. NATO version of it, it still has enough punch to go through walls or trees.

It FEELS like a gun

Sadly The way it is built, it is not a matter if youre a good shot, the barrel vibrates alot, even if you use it in semi mode, fully auto is just a waste due to that flaw.

The M16, has great precicion, harder to maintain, but not the hardest. The major advantage is that it has a pretty long range, where it is precise.

It is a really great modular weapon, and things are easy to attatch.

Apart from that it feels like a toy, nomatter how many times Ive used the Danish version of that family I just cant take the rifle seriously.

It lacks power, Period. You know a gun has a weakness, when it does not even have the power to knock down the targets on the range (most of the time it does but once in a while theres just not enough power left, to down the target).

I know that it is made so that it will "tumble" when it hits someone, causing internal damage, but you pretty often hear that your opponant gets hit and lives. That is NOT a very good weapon then... Especially if you use it for hunting... oh dear it would piss off a Bear to be hit by that one...

I guess my distaste for the m16 rifles were that we had the HK G3 before the m16, and it was a pretty big jump both in weight, and damage between those rifles, it was really hard getting used to the new gun.

Theres been alot of talk about this before on these boards ^^ Looks like newer generations of recruits dont mind the weight of the m16...