ohhh shit it just got bean-o all up in here!
[editline]11:04PM[/editline]
Aha! i knew i was right. The residue would gunk up the barrel among other things. one of the most important things a vietnam soldier had to carry was a large cleaning kit.
[QUOTE=benzinxrm;19649971]The AK47 is the obvious answer to this one, it is very durable and reliable, you can run it over, bury it, and it will almost always fire. Plus it has always had a great history, sure it isn't as accurate as the M16, but the AK47 fires a more powerful round.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
Bean-O is the fucking gun guru
Only fired an M16 before, so I'm going to say that. :v:
[QUOTE=benzinxrm;19649971]The AK47 is the obvious answer to this one, it is very durable and reliable, you can run it over, bury it, and it will almost always fire. Plus it has always had a great history, sure it isn't as accurate as the M16, but the AK47 fires a more powerful round.[/QUOTE]
What's it matter how big the round is if you can't hit that target with it because the gun is inaccurate?
Mosin Nagant is best.
[url]http://www.mouseguns.com/compare.htm[/url]
I'd have to go for the m16 because it was designed to be modified for any task that might come along, as long as that task can be solved with a 5.56 mm round.
[QUOTE=KOHIO;19656721]What's it matter how big the round is if you can't hit that target with it because the gun is inaccurate?[/QUOTE]
Contrary to popular belief (I blame YOU Call of Duty 4 and Counter Strike Source) the AK-47 is fairly accurate, and as Bean-O said, 300m is long enough range for an assault rifle, and if you want to hit something further, I would suggest getting a Designated Marksman Rifle or a similarly scoped weapon.
If it was a survival situation, I wouldn't even pick an assault rifle. I'd go shotgun all the way.
I'd take my Model 12 if it wasn't either target shooting or direct combat.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;19656952]If it was a survival situation, I wouldn't even pick an assault rifle. I'd go shotgun all the way.
I'd take my Model 12 if it wasn't either target shooting or direct combat.[/QUOTE]
That's the thing, shotguns have assault rifles beaten hands down in terms of power but even then only if you're in rock-throwing distance.
With an assault rifle you can carry more ammo, shoot it faster and you have far more range should you need it. With a shotgun you have power, versatility (swapping from one type of shell to another as the situation calls for) and maybe a bonus point for intimidation. But realistically I'd go for a rifle in most situations. It is the workhorse of every fighting force on earth for a reason.
As for AK vs. M16, they're both good. I just voted AK for no particular reason.
i like the ak beacuse the T uses it
AK47 to me seems to have better performance, although the M16 can have many attachments and just has a better feel to it.
I would go the AK47 because It's basicly indestructible, You can have it in any terrain with minimal to zero chances of it jamming or breaking.
(And they're real cheap :v:)
For a supposed gun expert, bean-o doesn't know shit.
[editline]05:46AM[/editline]
This thread saddens me by the general lack of weapon experience.
[QUOTE=Dr. Jim Dean;19658072]For a supposed gun expert, bean-o doesn't know shit.
[editline]05:46AM[/editline]
This thread saddens me by the general lack of weapon experience.[/QUOTE]
Go shoot yourself in a foot.
[B]AK-MOTHERFUCKING-47[/B]
Because 5.45 mm NATO rounds are for fucking sissies, what the fuck world? When did you forget that 7,62x39 mm [B]Fucking kicks your ass?[/B]
But if I would choose something else, I'd go for Rk 95. It's basically further advanced AK47, but it doesnt shake like a fucker when shooting with
[QUOTE=Dr. Jim Dean;19658072]For a supposed gun expert, bean-o doesn't know shit.
[editline]05:46AM[/editline]
This thread saddens me by the general lack of weapon experience.[/QUOTE]
Then great sir, tell us why we don't know shit.
Try to, you know, cite facts and don't be as dumb as the guy who was going "well the XCR is just an M16 blah blah blah I'm full of shit but I won't own up to it"
[QUOTE=dagoth_ur;19652047]I've held and fired a styer AUG, and i've held a AK, i prefer the AUG straight out...[/QUOTE]
I'm saying you are wrong at the "Easier to find spare parts" comment.
Get rid of this thread. There are too many non-educated people on Facepunch to be able to accurately draw a conclusion to this thread. It's all "lol M16 jams! AK is indesctrut'ble!" or "lol M16 is accurate and the AK is commie!"
I've had AKM's (yes. There are nearly NO AK-47 left. they are all AKM's or AK-74's or copies of such) jam on me more than any other AR style weapon.
Ak as far as looks.
[QUOTE=Raiskauskone;19658514][B]AK-MOTHERFUCKING-47[/B]
Because 5.45 mm NATO rounds are for fucking sissies, what the fuck world? When did you forget that 7,62x39 mm [B]Fucking kicks your ass?[/B][/QUOTE]
The AK is the only weapon in this contest that uses 5.45.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;19656251]Who ninja'd you?[/QUOTE]
Green Bandit. It's kind of odd, what I typed was almost identical to his.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;19658525]Then great sir, tell us why we don't know shit.
Try to, you know, cite facts and don't be as dumb as the guy who was going "well the XCR is just an M16 blah blah blah I'm full of shit but I won't own up to it"[/QUOTE]
It is an M16 in a plastic body kit. Same with the G36. It's an AR-18 (an AR-15 that has been simplified) wrapped in special plastic. That goes for the M8 as well, among others.
[QUOTE=H4ngman;19653306]Free fire zone with my M-16, Vendetta burns inside.
Whipe out their lifes, for eyes unseen. Mercy chilled to the freezing opint, to the war!
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=KkzMK0IVfhE[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
God dammit, why do they say "2.32"?
"2.23" has the same amount of syllables!
[editline]10:25PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Busdriver580;19652573]AK is way more durable, in Vietnam the Viet Cong refused to take dead marine's guns because they were notoriously fragile and easy to jam[/QUOTE]
If you believe Max Brooks, you're a faggot.
[QUOTE=Thomas849;19658565]It is an M16 in a plastic body kit. Same with the G36. It's an AR-18 (an AR-15 that has been simplified) wrapped in special plastic. That goes for the M8 as well, among others.[/QUOTE]
Please, look at my response to him. The Robinson XCR is a whole different animal. I included pretty pictures illustrating the differences.
Don't confuse the XCR with another AR-18/AR-15 derivative.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;19658622]Please, look at my response to him. The Robinson XCR is a whole different animal. I included pretty pictures illustrating the differences.
Don't confuse the XCR with another AR-18/AR-15 derivative.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah. the XCR is different. I was thinking ACR when I read it.
Fucking brother jerking off to MW2 in the background...
[editline]10:32PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Busdriver580;19652573]AK is way more durable, in Vietnam the Viet Cong refused to take dead marine's guns because they were notoriously fragile and easy to jam[/QUOTE]
The original M16, yes. The powder, no cleaning kits, we've heard it a million times before.
They fixed that with the A1.
AK is cool
Anyhow, I will take a properly built G3 or FAL over the AKM.
Hands down.
The 7.62 NATO, loaded with Hornady TAP, is a surefire way to have consistent fragmentation in humans, with enough power behind the bullet to be able to go through entire walls.
[img]http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/308_TAP_comparison.jpg[/img]
M16.
[QUOTE=Thomas849;19658690]The original M16, yes. The powder, no cleaning kits, we've heard it a million times before.
They fixed that with the A1.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me.
I may have not been clear with my earlier post in regards to reliability of both platforms.
I did say that some individuals who have carried the M16 platform consider it unreliable. However from the experience I had I didn't have any problems. Which makes sense since in all cases I was shooting a limited amount of ammo at a civilian range. Not exactly combat conditions.
Therefore I am forced to go off of secondhand knowledge. So take this with a grain of salt.
Troubles with an AR-15's reliability can come from numerous sources.
For instance build quality. Reportedly not all AR-15s are equal. One recurring problem faced with US troops is that their rifles are made as part of a massive bulk order where each rifle costs just under 600$ each and Colt cut a lot of corners. A few have Q.C. issues or just plain shoddy workmanship. Not all. but a few. This was highlighted when some NATO countries adopted the AR-15 platform but instead opted to place an order with Colt's Canadian division, Diemaco. Reports of reliability issues between US troops an NATO soldiers who carry the same rifle made on different budgets indicate that the Canadian M-16s are a bit better.
Then there's the direct impingement system. Normally on a gas operated rifle gas is bled off from the barrel and it pushes a rod that runs back to the receiver where it pushes the bolt back. On an M-16 that gas is channeled all the way back to the bolt and the gas pushes against the bolt directly. The trouble is that the gun powder never burns 100% cleanly and after a few hundred rounds you're going to start seeing residue build up in the guts of your weapon. It will need to be cleaned eventually. If you don't clean it that residue will built up, increasing the likelihood of malfunction.
Then there's the quality of the ammo. The dirtier it burns, the faster you'll gunk up your gun.
The AR platform is also built pretty tight. There aren't a lot of loose parts. The tolerances are very tight. everything is close together. Therefore from a simple engineering perspective that alone makes things slightly more susceptible to malfunction. However, it is a necessity for the benefit of the AR's supreme accuracy.
Does this make the AR platform unreliable? That's a matter of debate. For the most part it's just a matter of keeping it clean. Do that and it'll work fine. But some contest that in places like Iraq where the sand is like talcum powder keeping a rifle perfectly spotless is an impossible task. Other vets who I've talked to complain of frequent malfunctions regardless of how clean their weapon was. But that is unverified.
As for the AK, claiming it is 100% reliable, never jams, can't be destroyed is a stretch. All guns jam. The AK is no exception. From the way it was designed the entire approach to avoid jamming is that the weapon is both very simple and very sloppy. With as few parts as necessary, there is less that can go wrong. With loose, sloppy tolerances there is more margin for error between the interaction of all the components. So when some little thing goes off kilter it won't cause the entire weapon to malfunction.
But this all reduces the possibility of a jam. It doesn't eliminate it.
AKs jam like any other gun and even partially due to their inherent sloppiness. When a bolt scoops a round from a loosely fitted magazine into a breech attached to a barrel that's wobbling ever so slightly from the recoil of the previous shot you can see where occasionally that won't work right.
This weapon platform, however, is still more reliable than the AR series because if there is a jam it can be cleared easily. Unlike the built-up grime that needs to be cleaned off. Clearing a jam on an AK usually involves a simple swipe of the bolt. And because of the loose tolerances and the constant shaking which tends to shake residue loose, you don't have that buildup of gunk that you get with an AR.
It still needs to be cleaned and looked after. But nowhere near as often. And when something big goes wrong it can usually be fixed in the field.
As a backlash to this supposed 100% reliability some people have turned on the AK series and instead called it worthless junk. Claiming horrific reliability and that it would jam with every shot. They weren't completely wrong either. The AK series shares an issue with the AR-15 in that not all are made equal. On the civilian market you have your nearly 1000$ Arsenal AKs and your 300$ WASRs. Which do you think people buy the most of? Moreover, with a price difference like that one is slightly more well built and therefore reliable than the other. Specifically in the sense that one WASR can be excellent while another WASR is a lemon will jam every other round. The 1,000$ guns are less susceptible to that issue but not as many people buy them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.