M16 VS. AK47

[lehma18]

Which one's better, AK or M16?
Discuss.

Personally i like the 'k, because of it's reliability, accuracy and stopping power. M16 ain't got shit against the obviously superior AK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6xtRdonmDw&feature=related
Look at that document. Look at it and laugh. Bunch of people who are trained to use the M16 shoot full-auto with the kalashnikov, witch is designed for long-range single shots. And sereously, they go inside a building to test them out? Everyone knows wind throws 5.56 NATO around, they should have tested them outside. And come on, they sereously expect people to believe the AK's less accurate over long distance? As i said before, the AK's DESIGNED for long-range. Shitty document that obviously favours M16, the simply worse AR. Come at me.

[USABxBOOYO]

AK-47, the very best there is. When you absolutely, poistively have to kill every last motha fucka in the room, accept no substitutes.

[Varun]

I personally favour the AK, not out of having arguments, or thinking it superior, but because, well, I like it. Names kool. Looks fairly kool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

I didn't bother to read it. But someone out there might. It does not have conclusion, as it isn't searching for which is better, but you can draw conclusions from it.

[HaloWarLord711]

I like the AK-47 more, because in CoD its more powerful than the m16 and the m16 is burst only ak-47 is good for spraying
and is just better.
and CoD taught me everything about the ak 47 so im an expert just ask me and ill tell you anything you want to know about it :D

[ChaosTLW]

AK series is better, more reliable and with longer range, even though most "AK-47s" people see are actually AKMs.
I'm not sure, but the first cartridges the M16 used would, like, explode into small pieces inside the flesh(Kinda like a Hollow-Tip bullet)? Wouldn't that make it be more effective at taking down human targets?

Oh, and the AKs are simply beautiful :)

[mikuli]

Look at that document. Look at it and laugh. Bunch of people who are trained to use the M16 shoot full-auto with the kalashnikov, witch is designed for long-range single shots. And sereously, they go inside a building to test them out? Everyone knows wind throws 5.56 NATO around, they should have tested them outside. And come on, they sereously expect people to believe the AK's less accurate over long distance? As i said before, the AK's DESIGNED for long-range. Shitty document that obviously favours M16, the simply worse AR. Come at me.

>AK designed for long range shots
No. The maximum effective range is the order of 400m and even that is a huge stretch. The default sight placement and type make accurate fire extremely difficult, as the distance between the front and rear sights is small. The rear sight is also an open type, which is inherently more difficult to form a consistent sight picture with. Not to even mention the ballistics of the very weak 7.62x39mm cartridge. At 150 meters, the bullet falls approximately 25 cm. At 400 meters, we're talking about ~3 meters of drop compared to the much flatter flight trajectory of the .223 / 5.56 NATO. Remember, we're talking about a comparison between a an extremely easy to produce and cheap weapon to simply a cheap weapon. The manufacture tolerances of the military issue AKM/AK-47's are freakishly loose, and it's a damn miracle you'll hit a .5x.5m target at 150m with one.

>Wind throws the 5.56 NATO around
Supposedly so, but the much faster and flatter flight time negate the effect of wind traverse. I'm not going to pull data out of my ass for the NATO round, but 7.62x39 from a standard length barrel will deviate ~110cm in 150 meters with a wind of 10m/s perpendicular to the trajectory (source: FDF Soldiers Handbook / Sotilaan Käsikirja 2010).

It has to be said, that the 7.62 round does not deflect from hitting foliage and small branches quite as easily as the 5.56 - then again, a full magazine weighs nearly a kilogram and makes carrying a large amount of ammunition cumbersome over time in combat.

The '47 has been an obsolete weapon for a few decades by now, with the M16 series still receiving upgrades and has a long service life ahead of it with various armed forces around the world. At least try to compare relevant firearms with each other, for example the 5.45mm AK-74 platform and it's variants or even the newer 1xx series rifles against the modern m16 variants.

[lehma18]

>AK designed for long range shots
No. The maximum effective range is the order of 400m and even that is a huge stretch. The default sight placement and type make accurate fire extremely difficult, as the distance between the front and rear sights is small. The rear sight is also an open type, which is inherently more difficult to form a consistent sight picture with. Not to even mention the ballistics of the very weak 7.62x39mm cartridge. At 150 meters, the bullet falls approximately 25 cm. At 400 meters, we're talking about ~3 meters of drop compared to the much flatter flight trajectory of the .223 / 5.56 NATO. Remember, we're talking about a comparison between a an extremely easy to produce and cheap weapon to simply a cheap weapon. The manufacture tolerances of the military issue AKM/AK-47's are freakishly loose, and it's a damn miracle you'll hit a .5x.5m target at 150m with one.

Actually you're right, it's not a long-range sniping weapon, it is an AR after all. But still, it's balanced more towards range, when the M16 is more like a close-quarter spray & pray weapon with low recoil and light weight. It uses the pussy-ass 5.56 NATO so soldiers can carry more gear and ammo. Besides, it takes multiple hits to bring anyone down with 5.56. Saw a video of an american soldier firing "Warning shots" at a truck in iraq, in an area where there weren't even supposed to be any terrorists. Three bursts straight at the truck. Turned out it was a man driving kids to school. One kid was hit three times in the torso and he didn't even pass out. I'd find the video, but it was like, two years ago in 4chan, so i doubt i will find it.

>Wind throws the 5.56 NATO around
Supposedly so, but the much faster and flatter flight time negate the effect of wind traverse. I'm not going to pull data out of my ass for the NATO round, but 7.62x39 from a standard length barrel will deviate ~110cm in 150 meters with a wind of 10m/s perpendicular to the trajectory (source: FDF Soldiers Handbook / Sotilaan Käsikirja 2010).

Guess i was wrong

It has to be said, that the 7.62 round does not deflect from hitting foliage and small branches quite as easily as the 5.56 - then again, a full magazine weighs nearly a kilogram and makes carrying a large amount of ammunition cumbersome over time in combat.

But 7.62 pierces much much better, and having to ability to blast through walls is kind of handy. 5.56 can't even penetrate wooden walls, there are plenty of reports of talibans taking cover behind simple wooden barricades.

The '47 has been an obsolete weapon for a few decades by now, with the M16 series still receiving upgrades and has a long service life ahead of it with various armed forces around the world. At least try to compare relevant firearms with each other, for example the 5.45mm AK-74 platform and it's variants or even the newer 1xx series rifles against the modern m16 variants.

Why would i choose a worse weapon to compare with the M16? AK47 is still superior in terms of stopping power, reliability, penetration, maintenance, accuracy. There are multiple variations of AK47, ones with much better sights and general design. Take the rk95 for an example. AK-based weapons always have, and most likely will be superior in comparison with the M-series. Americans are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. The thing i don't understand is why they haven't made their own design based on the K.

[wheelz]

i prefer the ak coz after handling both of them and and took a few shots with them a found.....oh wait now.

[mikuli]

For your first point, here is an image of a 5.56mm NATO caused wound:DO NOT CLICK IF YOU'RE SQUEAMISH ABOUT TORN FLESH AND MUSCLE. VERY GRAPHIC.

I think that image says the thousand words to counter that point. We're talking about a military round, not a BB gun's pellet. Find me that source, or your're just bullshitting. The poor wounding properties of the older M885's are history. 7.62 and 5.56 NATO both do one thing really well: The one they're supposed to do. It's a moot point.

A spray and pray weapon? Neither weapon is supposed to be used in full automatic mode for any other purpose than to provide suppressing fire. I've no idea where you're getting that from.

pussy ass 5.56 so the soldiers can carry more gear and ammo.

Exactly. That is one of the major advantages for the round.

But 7.62 pierces much much better, and having to ability to blast through walls is kind of handy. 5.56 can't even penetrate wooden walls, there are plenty of reports of talibans taking cover behind simple wooden barricades.

Why 5.56 performs poorly against walls and such at close distances is the immense speed the bullet flies. Under 25 meters, where most through-wall shooting incidents would occur, the projectile will be travelling more than 1000m/s and will thus shatter into small fragments due to the kinetic energy of the round. Read more
Though if you're actually going to claim the 5.56 cannot penetrate basic indoor walls, you're going to need some good sourcing on that. Here's some for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPGSiDs5_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprGoEpDXJQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sCXmQstl_Y

Why would i choose a worse weapon to compare with the M16? AK47 is still superior in terms of stopping power, reliability, penetration, maintenance, accuracy. There are multiple variations of AK47, ones with much better sights and general design. Take the rk95 for an example. AK-based weapons always have, and most likely will be superior in comparison with the M-series. Americans are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. The thing i don't understand is why they haven't made their own design based on the K.

You might want to reconsider the "worse weapon" statement, considering the performance of the 5.45 is a huge advancement from the poor ballistics of the 7.62 short. Like I've already said, the venerable 47 is outdated and has been phased out in every single modern military of the world - for a reason, too. The FDF is hardly modern, mind you, and the RK95 improves very little from the 60's system. Why bring that up, though, considering you made a point about the reliability and maintenace of the AK system - The RK's are in no way an example for that. The sheer amount of maintenance required to keep it reliably shooting is pretty big - easily compares with the M16A4 platform. Ever been in sandy terrain with one? I have. A few grains in between the slide and the boxlid will force you to use a plank to whack it open.

What we are discussing, though was AK-47, not it's variants. As for sights, you can strap a rail on much anything imaginable and put a holo on top. The sight that comes on the rifle from the factory is utterly shit for 150 meter shots. Ever tried the RK's night rear sight? Yeah, imagine that, but worse.

AK-based weapons always have, and most likely will be superior in comparison with the M-series. Americans are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. The thing i don't understand is why they haven't made their own design based on the K.

Yeah, I'm not even touching this.

[Falcon]

For your first point, here is an image of a 5.56mm NATO caused wound:DO NOT CLICK IF YOU'RE SQUEAMISH ABOUT TORN FLESH AND MUSCLE. VERY GRAPHIC.

I think that image says the thousand words to counter that point. We're talking about a military round, not a BB gun's pellet. Find me that source, or your're just bullshitting. The poor wounding properties of the older M885's are history. 7.62 and 5.56 NATO both do one thing really well: The one they're supposed to do. It's a moot point.

A spray and pray weapon? Neither weapon is supposed to be used in full automatic mode for any other purpose than to provide suppressing fire. I've no idea where you're getting that from.

pussy ass 5.56 so the soldiers can carry more gear and ammo.

Exactly. That is one of the major advantages for the round.

But 7.62 pierces much much better, and having to ability to blast through walls is kind of handy. 5.56 can't even penetrate wooden walls, there are plenty of reports of talibans taking cover behind simple wooden barricades.

Why 5.56 performs poorly against walls and such at close distances is the immense speed the bullet flies. Under 25 meters, where most through-wall shooting incidents would occur, the projectile will be travelling more than 1000m/s and will thus shatter into small fragments due to the kinetic energy of the round. Read more
Though if you're actually going to claim the 5.56 cannot penetrate basic indoor walls, you're going to need some good sourcing on that.

Why would i choose a worse weapon to compare with the M16? AK47 is still superior in terms of stopping power, reliability, penetration, maintenance, accuracy. There are multiple variations of AK47, ones with much better sights and general design. Take the rk95 for an example. AK-based weapons always have, and most likely will be superior in comparison with the M-series. Americans are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. The thing i don't understand is why they haven't made their own design based on the K.

You might want to reconsider the "worse weapon" statement, considering the performance of the 5.45 is a huge advancement from the poor ballistics of the 7.62 short. Like I've already said, the venerable 47 is outdated and has been phased out in every single modern military of the world - for a reason, too. The FDF is hardly modern, mind you, and the RK95 improves very little from the 60's system. Why bring that up, though, considering you made a point about the reliability and maintenace of the AK system - The RK's are in no way an example for that. The sheer amount of maintenance required to keep it reliably shooting is pretty big - easily compares with the M16A4 platform. Ever been in sandy terrain with one? I have. A few grains in between the slide and the boxlid will force you to use a plank to whack it open.

What we are discussing, though was AK-47, not it's variants. As for sights, you can strap a rail on much anything imaginable and put a holo on top. The sight that comes on the rifle from the factory is utterly shit for 150 meter shots. Ever tried the RK's night rear sight? Yeah, imagine that, but worse.

AK-based weapons always have, and most likely will be superior in comparison with the M-series. Americans are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. The thing i don't understand is why they haven't made their own design based on the K.

Yeah, I'm not even touching this.

Brain..Hurts..

[FaZe]

o.0 Mikuli...Are you sure that picture isn't from like, a 105 mm?

[HaloWarLord711]

o.0 Mikuli...Are you sure that picture isn't from like, a 105 mm?

105MM is about 4.1 Inches
he wouldn't have a leg anymore if that had hit him

[Platinum]

Everyone is so technical.

[FaZe]

o.0 Mikuli...Are you sure that picture isn't from like, a 105 mm?

105MM is about 4.1 Inches
he wouldn't have a leg anymore if that had hit him

'Twas an exaggeration. What I meant was "Holy duck that looks like a bigger calibre."

[lehma18]

For your first point, here is an image of a 5.56mm NATO caused wound:DO NOT CLICK IF YOU'RE SQUEAMISH ABOUT TORN FLESH AND MUSCLE. VERY GRAPHIC.

I think that image says the thousand words to counter that point. We're talking about a military round, not a BB gun's pellet. Find me that source, or your're just bullshitting. The poor wounding properties of the older M885's are history. 7.62 and 5.56 NATO both do one thing really well: The one they're supposed to do. It's a moot point.

A spray and pray weapon? Neither weapon is supposed to be used in full automatic mode for any other purpose than to provide suppressing fire. I've no idea where you're getting that from.

pussy ass 5.56 so the soldiers can carry more gear and ammo.

Exactly. That is one of the major advantages for the round.

But 7.62 pierces much much better, and having to ability to blast through walls is kind of handy. 5.56 can't even penetrate wooden walls, there are plenty of reports of talibans taking cover behind simple wooden barricades.

Why 5.56 performs poorly against walls and such at close distances is the immense speed the bullet flies. Under 25 meters, where most through-wall shooting incidents would occur, the projectile will be travelling more than 1000m/s and will thus shatter into small fragments due to the kinetic energy of the round. Read more
Though if you're actually going to claim the 5.56 cannot penetrate basic indoor walls, you're going to need some good sourcing on that.

Why would i choose a worse weapon to compare with the M16? AK47 is still superior in terms of stopping power, reliability, penetration, maintenance, accuracy. There are multiple variations of AK47, ones with much better sights and general design. Take the rk95 for an example. AK-based weapons always have, and most likely will be superior in comparison with the M-series. Americans are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. The thing i don't understand is why they haven't made their own design based on the K.

You might want to reconsider the "worse weapon" statement, considering the performance of the 5.45 is a huge advancement from the poor ballistics of the 7.62 short. Like I've already said, the venerable 47 is outdated and has been phased out in every single modern military of the world - for a reason, too. The FDF is hardly modern, mind you, and the RK95 improves very little from the 60's system. Why bring that up, though, considering you made a point about the reliability and maintenace of the AK system - The RK's are in no way an example for that. The sheer amount of maintenance required to keep it reliably shooting is pretty big - easily compares with the M16A4 platform. Ever been in sandy terrain with one? I have. A few grains in between the slide and the boxlid will force you to use a plank to whack it open.

What we are discussing, though was AK-47, not it's variants. As for sights, you can strap a rail on much anything imaginable and put a holo on top. The sight that comes on the rifle from the factory is utterly shit for 150 meter shots. Ever tried the RK's night rear sight? Yeah, imagine that, but worse.

AK-based weapons always have, and most likely will be superior in comparison with the M-series. Americans are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. The thing i don't understand is why they haven't made their own design based on the K.

Yeah, I'm not even touching this.

I yield, but i still think AK's better. Angryface.