• AK 47 or M 16?
    343 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;19725115]AK107 =/= AK47. Different calibres so it doesn't really work. [/QUOTE] That's like saying the 1911 is a different gun when converted to 9mm. But I'm glad to see someone else who knows their shit.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;19719319]Pulp Fiction[/QUOTE] Wrong!
Ak less jamming.
AK-47's just always remind me of braindead terrorists and other scum that have no idea what they're doing but get away with it just because they have a gun. M16's seem more professional and elite...
Ak's are rather heavy.
[QUOTE=protoAuthor;19725588]That's like saying the 1911 is a different gun when converted to 9mm.[/QUOTE] I'd say it pretty much is. It might be the same operationally and aesthetically, but the two calibres perform very differently. I do see what you mean, though.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;19728149]I'd say it pretty much is. It might be the same operationally and aesthetically, but the two calibres perform very differently. I do see what you mean, though.[/QUOTE] I'd say something about if it uses the same action, it's the same gun, but then I'd have to say the Galil and the Vektor CR-21 are the same gun. Point taken.
Oh yeah, as people have been saying, the M16 and its ammunition is much lighter. If you're on a range or whatever, this doesn't really matter, but when you're lugging this around as well as your other equipment on a patrol or mission, it factors in massively. This means if you were to choose an AK-47, you'd either have to carry less ammunition than an M16 user, or burden yourself more for the same amount of ammunition.
AK, for the sound of it.
[QUOTE=protoAuthor;19728243]I'd say something about if it uses the same action, it's the same gun, but then I'd have to say the Galil and the Vektor CR-21 are the same gun. Point taken.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I understand why you say it's the same gun, but if you think about it a cannon that launches a ball of lead will perform much differently than if the same cannon launched a ball of... potatoes :v: [editline]09:04PM[/editline] God damn my automerge is being RAPED
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;19728331]Yeah, I understand why you say it's the same gun, but if you think about it a cannon that launches a ball of lead will perform much differently than if the same cannon launched a ball of... potatoes :v:[/QUOTE] Launch those potatoes straight into my mouth.
Oops sorry I loaded the lead ball
Having never been in a firefight in my entire life, I would likely spaz out and crouch in place while spraying bullets left and right, therefore the AK47 is for me :derp: Plus I've never fired an M16 or related weapon so I'm more used to the AK controls.
ANOTHER THING The AK-47's mag is designed so it's difficult to fire from a prone position, because Russians seem to favour Zerg-rushes, and the fact that there are 30 7.62x39 chunky monkies in there doesn't help. Again, might not be a problem on a range where you can pile some sandbags and make it comfortable, but in a contact, which can happen anywhere, you're not gonna have the time to do that unless you're really lucky, so you're gonna be having more difficulty than those guys over there with their (not) shiny 5.56 rifles.
The AK-47 was discontinued by the soviet army in the late 50's/early 1960's, the original AK-47 was a rather clumsy weapon with heavy receiver and high recoil. The gun what really deserves the AK-47's fame is the AKM, which is a massive improvement over the AK-47 and is probably the most used rifle in the world. Comparing the M16 to the AK-47 is rather unfair, comparing the M16A1 to the AK-74 would be fairer, seeing as they have similar accuracy and caliber.
[QUOTE=Aurain;19728752]The AK-47 was discontinued by the soviet army in the late 50's/early 1960's, the original AK-47 was a rather clumsy weapon with heavy receiver and high recoil. The gun what really deserves the AK-47's fame is the AKM, which is a massive improvement over the AK-47 and is probably the most used rifle in the world. Comparing the M16 to the AK-47 is rather unfair, comparing the M16A1 to the AK-74 would be fairer, seeing as they have similar accuracy and caliber.[/QUOTE] I'd agree with you but all the uninformed thundercunts would rate you bad spelling and be like "OMGAWD ITS AK47 NOT AK74 U NUB" The reason it's AK-47 v. M16 is probably because they were the main service rifles in the USSR and USA respectively, during the Cold War.
[QUOTE=Vityaz;19697807]The M16 is a far superior weapon in just about every aspect, only good thing about the AK family is any retard can use it with no prior training.[/QUOTE] The M16 is more user friendly and common sense oriented than the AK47...
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;19728909]I'd agree with you but all the uninformed thundercunts would rate you bad spelling and be like "OMGAWD ITS AK47 NOT AK74 U NUB" The reason it's AK-47 v. M16 is probably because they were the main service rifles in the USSR and USA respectively, during the Cold War.[/QUOTE] The AK-47 was only the soviet army's main service rifle for about the first 10/11 years of the second half of the Twentieth Century(from 1950 to 1960/1961) it was not the main rifle of soviet forces in the cold war, the AKM/AK-74 was. And to be honest, most ''AK-47's'' on battlefield's today are either AKM's or Chinese and warsaw pact copies, you would be hard pressed to find an 100% original soviet AK-47 these days.
[QUOTE=Aurain;19728982]The AK-47 was only the soviet army's main service rifle for about the first 10/11 years of the second half of the Twentieth Century(from 1950 to 1960/1961) it was not the main rifle of soviet forces in the cold war, the AKM/AK-74 was.[/QUOTE] I was going to say "for the first few years" but then I forgot to put that in :v: Still, the AKM is 7.62x39, 74 is 5.45x39. In the most major conflict during that time (Vietnam), the US used the M16, the Vietcong/PAVN used 47s and AKMs (among SKSes and other firearms), and didn't get their hands on 74s until the war was practically over (Or even at all as far as I know, as the designation implies it was introduced in service with the Red Army in 74). [editline]09:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Aurain;19728982]And to be honest, most ''AK-47's'' on battlefield's today are either AKM's or Chinese and warsaw pact copies, you would be hard pressed to find an 100% original soviet AK-47 these days.[/QUOTE] For the sake of simplicity I think "AK-47" is being used as an umbrella term for every weapon using that action which is chambered in 7.62x39mm.
M16 One-Burst No Skill FTW
Once more, we need the examples of situations when each gun would be used. Because at the end of the day, the third choice in the pool should be Thompson SMG with a drum.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;19729299]I was going to say "for the first few years" but then I forgot to put that in :v: Still, the AKM is 7.62x39, 74 is 5.45x39. In the most major conflict during that time (Vietnam), the US used the M16, the Vietcong/PAVN used 47s and AKMs (among SKSes and other firearms), and didn't get their hands on 74s until the war was practically over (Or even at all as far as I know, as the designation implies it was introduced in service with the Red Army in 74). [editline]09:48PM[/editline] For the sake of simplicity I think "AK-47" is being used as an umbrella term for every weapon using that action which is chambered in 7.62x39mm.[/QUOTE] The PAVN still have not got a vast amount of AK-74 rifles, as far as i know the Vietnamese navy really only use them. You are mostly correct about PAVN/VC weaponry in The Vietnam war, Though they mosly used Type-56 rifle's supplied by the PRC. You are also correct about the ''AK-47'' being used as an umbrella term, most people would not know the difference between an AK-47 and a AKM.
[QUOTE=Aurain;19729735]The PAVN still have not got a vast amount of AK-74 rifles, as far as i know the Vietnamese navy really only use them. You are mostly correct about PAVN/VC weaponry in The Vietnam war, Though they mosly used Type-56 rifle's supplied by the PRC.[/quote] That's me doing this :v: [quote] You are also correct about the ''AK-47'' being used as an umbrella term, most people would not know the difference between an AK-47 and a AKM.[/QUOTE]
These people have no idea what they're talking about: [QUOTE=adadadsd;19678061]If you know anything about actual guns, you'll know that Ak's are extremley reliable and easy to use while M16's are a mess.[/QUOTE] Whether you mean mess as in they jam or mess as in they're complicated, you're wrong. It's not much harder to field strip an AR/M16 than it is to field strip an AK variant, in fact I find the M16 easier to field strip, but in any case there's no real difference in ease of use. As for reliability, my pre-M16A1 based Colt Model 604 M16 is just as reliable as my AK and I rarely clean it. [QUOTE=green bandit;19694396]The m16A1 at one point where so bad, that in the Vietnam war, communists guerrillas refused to take them from fallen Americans.[/QUOTE] Stop. The M16A1 is no less reliable than the current issue M4, by the time the M16A1 was adopted all problems were fixed, and the only problems they had weren't really problems with the gun, just problems in the training, equipment issued with them and the ammunition. [QUOTE=GuyFromThtPlace;19694891]Don't M16s jam frequently? Anyways, AK47.[/QUOTE] No, they don't. [QUOTE=Kawaii;19696269]AK-47: Will jam once in a blue moon. [b]Haven't had an M16 jam on me either.[/b] You will hit what you shoot at.[b]That's a pro?[/b] Cheap.[b]Not much cheaper than the M16 honestly, this only applies if you're building the gun in a factory. Surplus M16s are a dime a dozen.[/b] Cheap and plentiful ammo. It's deadly.[b]This is a pro?[/b] M16: Jams. A lot.[b]Never had one jam on me, the military doesn't seem to have that problem either.[/b] Is accurate, more accurate than the AK. Expensive as hell.[b]Again, only if you have to build it in the factory, surplus M16s aren't much more expensive than your average AK 47.[/b] Expensive but plentiful ammo.[b]That makes no sense. In the US it's expensive because of hording, but everywhere else it's more common than 7.62x39.[/b] Is not deadly. It fires a shitty round that cant kill anything.[b]Well in that case I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I shot you with it. It's plenty deadly, deadly enough that Russia considered the 7.62x39 round obsolete and replaced it with the 5.45x39 round, which is based on the 5.56x45 round.[/b] I go with AK.[/QUOTE] Read the bolded parts. [QUOTE=Fish Muffin;19717915]AK 47. Its like, 100 times more durable and takes less than half the time to field strip it. AK wins in power, durability, cost, simplicity, and abundance. M16 wins in Accuracy and ROF.[/QUOTE] I can field strip my AK as fast as my M16, the M16 is actually easier to field strip since you don't have to mess with a dust cover, which is a pain in the ass to get back on. You're also forgetting that the M16 is incredibly abundant, with the US military selling weapons to everyone and their dog, M16s and M4s are almost as easy to find as AK's, if not easier to find in some cases. This thread is fun.
5.56x45 NATO reliably will tumble and explode within 125 yards. After that it just makes holes. Also, the AK is definitely easier to clean. Easier to clean out the recesses of the bolt. Mug of Doom, you are not allowed to talk in this thread anymore unless you cite proper evidence, because you lack understanding and research. The M16 WILL jam quicker then the AK47, a consequence of DI, and tight tolerances. The AKM is far less accurate then the m16 as a result of loose tolerances. With proper training, both weapons are just fine, but both could be better. The Robinson XCR, to me, fixes everything :razz:
M16, my dad had one and it's just fun to shoot though I've never touched an AK
[QUOTE=Aurain;19728752]The AK-47 was discontinued by the soviet army in the late 50's/early 1960's, the original AK-47 was a rather clumsy weapon with heavy receiver and high recoil. The gun what really deserves the AK-47's fame is the AKM, which is a massive improvement over the AK-47 and is probably the most used rifle in the world. Comparing the M16 to the AK-47 is rather unfair, comparing the M16A1 to the AK-74 would be fairer, seeing as they have similar accuracy and caliber.[/QUOTE] The original AK 47 was discontinued in 1953, it had a stamped receiver (known as a Type I) and due to metallurgy problems with the receivers warping, an AK 47 with a milled receiver (known as the Type II) was introduced in 1951 and produced alongside the Type I until 1953. In 1954 or so the Type II was vastly simplified and replaced with the Type III which was produced until 1959 when the AKM (also known as the Type IV or 4) was adopted, this happened because the metallurgy problems experienced before were finally fixed so they basically employed the changes they made to the design with the milled receiver AK's and further simplified the design, using more rivets, more stampings and a simpler design process. THE MORE YOU KNOW I don't know where you get the whole heavy recoil thing from though, considering the only real difference between the guns is the receiver, and the milled receiver adds like 3 or 4 pounds to the gun, the recoil is actually much lighter. Same with the Type 1, which is slightly heavier than the AKM.
I prefer the M16 for accuracy, considering that enemy engagement happens many meters away.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;19730620]These people have no idea what they're talking about: Whether you mean mess as in they jam or mess as in they're complicated, you're wrong. It's not much harder to field strip an AR/M16 than it is to field strip an AK variant, in fact I find the M16 easier to field strip, but in any case there's no real difference in ease of use. As for reliability, my pre-M16A1 based Colt Model 604 M16 is just as reliable as my AK and I rarely clean it. Stop. The M16A1 is no less reliable than the current issue M4, by the time the M16A1 was adopted all problems were fixed, and the only problems they had weren't really problems with the gun, just problems in the training, equipment issued with them and the ammunition. No, they don't. Read the bolded parts. I can field strip my AK as fast as my M16, the M16 is actually easier to field strip since you don't have to mess with a dust cover, which is a pain in the ass to get back on. You're also forgetting that the M16 is incredibly abundant, with the US military selling weapons to everyone and their dog, M16s and M4s are almost as easy to find as AK's, if not easier to find in some cases. This thread is fun.[/QUOTE] This man Is correct [editline]12:02AM[/editline] [QUOTE=mugofdoom;19731321]The original AK 47 was discontinued in 1953, it had a stamped receiver (known as a Type I) and due to metallurgy problems with the receivers warping, an AK 47 with a milled receiver (known as the Type II) was introduced in 1951 and produced alongside the Type I until 1953. In 1954 or so the Type II was vastly simplified and replaced with the Type III which was produced until 1959 when the AKM (also known as the Type IV or 4) was adopted, this happened because the metallurgy problems experienced before were finally fixed so they basically employed the changes they made to the design with the milled receiver AK's and further simplified the design, using more rivets, more stampings and a simpler design process. THE MORE YOU KNOW I don't know where you get the whole heavy recoil thing from though, considering the only real difference between the guns is the receiver, and the milled receiver adds like 3 or 4 pounds to the gun, the recoil is actually much lighter. Same with the Type 1, which is slightly heavier than the AKM.[/QUOTE] and knowledgeable
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;19732465]This man Is correct [editline]12:02AM[/editline] and knowledgeable[/QUOTE] Aww thank you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.