61 replies to this topic

[AllStarZ]

Lets discuss the merits of these two weapons.

[Waris]

Let's draw the comparison one by one.

AK: Cheaper.

[BillyChaka]

AK: Less accurate

[AllStarZ]

Not true. Single shots make the AK more accurate over long distances than the M-16. The AK simply is more inaccurate at close ranges when using full automatic because it has a bigger recoil due to the larger bullet and larget amount of explosive. In any case, another fault of the AK: Heavy Weight.

Edited by AllStarZ, 20 March 2006 - 20:45.

[Waris]

Yeah. Not an offense, but the Taliban snipers had once too many time snipe a Coalition's head; with an AK-47.

M16: More flexible.

[AllStarZ]

M16: Firing ammunition leaves chunks of calcium carbonate in the gas system, which then have to be cleaned out every day the gun is fired.

[Sgt. Nuker]

AK: not only cheaper and faster to produce, but it's sturdier and easier to maintain.

[AllStarZ]

M16: Fires alot faster and recoil is easier to control.

[MLRS]

Ak: More made, can be run over by a truck and still work, pwnage power.

[BillyChaka]

AllStarZ, on 20 Mar 2006, 15:44, said:

Not true. Single shots make the AK more accurate over long distances than the M-16. The AK simply is more inaccurate at close ranges when using full automatic because it has a bigger recoil due to the larger bullet and larget amount of explosive. In any case, another fault of the AK: Heavy Weight.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the effective range of an M16 is 600 yards. The AK47 is half that. Also, the bullet fires at a higher velocity. The 5.56 mm spins faster and totally pwns that 7.62.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Stand in front of a M16 w/ kevlar, you might survive. Stand in front of an AK, you won't.

Larger calibre = stopping power!!


Respectfully,

Major Nuker

[BillyChaka]

Fine, you beat me there. Also, the AK can use 7.62 NATO (one round at a time), but the NATO weapons can't use the 7.62 Soviet. (The reds did that with their mortar rounds, too.)

Edited by BillyChaka, 21 March 2006 - 01:51.

[Sgt. Nuker]

That's the funny world of "I can go your way, but you can't go my way."

More to the point: "I can have my cake and eat it too, and you can't."


Regards,

Major Nuker

[Cryptkeeper]

Nuker86, on 20 Mar 2006, 19:13, said:

Stand in front of a M16 w/ kevlar, you might survive. Stand in front of an AK, you won't.

Larger calibre = stopping power!!


Respectfully,

Major Nuker
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh no i've seen many pics of pweople surviving ak shots with kevlar vest and helmet they were shoot over 8 times XD

i haven't seen any body survive over 8 rounds from a M-16 with full kevlar suit on so i have to disagree there the realy only thing a ak gots going for it is its easy use and toughness and ammo for is extremely cheap

Edited by cryptkeeper08, 21 March 2006 - 03:30.

[Alias]

Can I go for the MP5?

I do not like either (I do prefer the AK)


Cheers,
Comrade Captain jermies

[Whitey]

well the AK is more simplistic and thus less prone to jam

the m16 does have less recoil and a more accurate bullet

the ak is tougher and leaves a bigger hole

the m16 is more customizable

it all balances out methinks

[Sgt. Nuker]

...and if you own both, you have the best of both worlds!!

[Baal-Zebub]

AK, more powerful, bigger bullets, usable in almost every condition, a LOT noiser!

from a book said:

U.S soldiers would swap their M-16s with Aks from fallen enemies in the Gulf War...

that's the basic idea.

[Foxhound]

I like the mention of the customizable M-16. (well actually its the M-4 SOPMOD but the M-4 IS an M-16) but you get the idea. you can add a scope, bipod, projectile launcher, silencer, etc. that boosts the M-16 in my opinion.

[Waris]

Yhea, but at least the AK can be fixed with a 40mm grenade launcher. (and also a 100-round drum magazine but I can't remember the source.)

[AllStarZ]

The AK has better man-stopping power. No one has survived being hit by a couple of AK rounds while not wearing armor. However, the M16 has better armor piercing qualities than the AK. Let me explain: Bigger bullet means bigger hole in a person, but bigger bullet also allows means that the bullet encounters more resistance when it hits a kevlar jacket.

As for accuracy, let me explain. The AK certainly has a longer range than the M16. For one thing, the powder charge is several times larger than the 5.56mm NATO. The bullet is also heavier, giving it more momentum. The M16's bullet however, is prone to being pushed off target by wind because it is much lighter.

In my opinion, the M16 is a piece of crap compared to the AK. The AK is a real soldier's weapon, designed to survive any possible battlefield condition. And honestly, what would you prefer: A gun that fires faster, but jams all the time, or a gun that fires slower, but is impossible to jam? The probability of a gun jamming is the probability of you dying.

Edited by AllStarZ, 21 March 2006 - 13:20.

[The_Hunter]

AK is russian made and there for it's better simple

[PedroV1500]

with out a doubt the M16 prooves itself more in Accuraqcy and range and it lighter then the AK....i should know bc i held them and shot them....and lemme tell u the M16 is way better


so the M15 can be fit with an M203 He or M203 smoke or an M203 HE and a rifle laser or a high scope which is ideal for sniper work

Edited by PedroV1500, 21 March 2006 - 14:27.

[Waris]

The_Hunter, on 21 Mar 2006, 21:33, said:

AK is russian made and there for it's better simple
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Berkut is russian made and there for it's better simple

That way?

[Sgt. Nuker]

Waris, on 21 Mar 2006, 09:01, said:

Yhea, but at least the AK can be fixed with a 40mm grenade launcher. (and also a 100-round drum magazine but I can't remember the source.)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hehe, drum magazine.....Tommy Gun style .