104 replies to this topic

[Areze]

Harsh Environment: AK-47

Good Environment: M-16

[TehKiller]

and not such a very good opinion (on the forest thingy)....since the AK can penetrate trees and even rocks and the M16 can't do shit even to normal tree

[Kris]

I think the AK-47 is designed to the soviet environment (woods and stuff) while the M16 is designed for long range, open field battlefield only.

The Ak-47 is a very reliable weapon, mash it, drive a truck over it, put it under water for months etc, and the Ak-47 will still work....While the M-16 needs baby sitting, Do what you can do with an AK-47 and you will destroy your M-16.

[Cattman2236]

Bah the L85-A2 (SA-80) is a superb weapon which has proved to be better than the M16 and the AK-101

[Eddy01741]

Ak-101= horrible, no matter how much they made it lighter, it's still as inacccurate as teh Ak-47, and with all the new plastic lightweight stuff, the reliability and durabiliity of the Ak-101 is terrible in comparison to the Ak-47, it's not even russia's current assault rifle (that would be the AN-94 IIRC). And seriously, the L-85 is accurate, but do you even know how many reliability issues it's had (the A1 model had magazines FALLING OUT when they were firing their guns... i hear the A2 fixed that, but still has reliabiilty issues as heard from soldiers in Iraq). Also, the L-85 should be better than both those guns, the M-16 came in the 60s, and the Ak-101 is just a SUPPOSEDLY 'improved' AK-47, while the L-85 was developed in the 80s (may I say that it was based on the AR-18, the M-16 is the AR-15 btw), however, you don't unerstand the whole point of all these calculations. The L-85 hasn't been really combat proven (well, they've been proven tohave reliability problems), and the service length ain't too much, while guns like the M-16 and Ak-47 have been here for more than 40 years. This is the reason why superb guns liek the G-36 arn't here, I still seriously wonder why the G-3 isn't here, I mean, it kinda depends on personal opionion if it was better than the FAL, but I bet that at least like 4/5 gun experts you meet would say it's better than the M-14, and the M-14 is #10 while the G-3 isn't even on the list.

[BillyChaka]

Well, the Military is a very conservative American television channel.

[Cattman2236]

Eddy01741, your point is valid BUT unless you have used an L85-A2 then you really don`t have a leg to stand on. The L85-A2 is a superb weapon, i have never had it jam on me berfore, The accuracy once you have it zeroed is amazing (believe me when i say that). The only problem i found with it was it is a little heavier than the A1 version due to the new counter weight in the pistol grip.

I would`nt go around the web finding dodgy reports about this weapon because most of them are about the A1 version (which was sh*t)

Edited by Cattman2236, 19 December 2006 - 09:51.

[Vidar]

The M-16 is still a bunch of crap, it was the wrong decision to ship these weapons to the troops after all.

2 guns are missing. The HK G36 and the HK XM90

[Rade]

how I like when people who never even held a rifle let along had chance to fire one argue which one is better.
And for those that say the AK is inaccurate, in the army shooting with my M-70AB2 in semi-auto at 100m I could group bullets in circle that is smaller than 10cm(4 inches) :camper: , and I had no problem in hitting the man sized targets at 400m and at 300m at night shooting, for everything beyond that you would probably need optics with any rifle because it's very hard to aim at something that at this distance looks smaller than dot in your front sight.

Now the things I don't like about the AK:

• diopter rear sights instead of V shaped would make aiming much easier,
  
• long curved magazines sometimes make it hard to shot when prone,
  
• charging handle on the left side of the rifle would make reloading much faster and easier,
  
• and last two things weight and recoil, weight is something you just get used to after some time but I wouldn't mind if the rifle was lighter, and recoil is acceptable if you fire with short 2-3 rounds bursts, and with newer AK's in 5,45 or 5,56 recoil is not worse than on any other assault rifle used by American or European armies.

and just one question to TehKiller, any chance you got more info on new Croatian rifle by HS produkt

[TehKiller]

Rade, on 19 Dec 2006, 16:47, said:

and just one question to TehKiller, any chance you got more info on new Croatian rifle by HS produkt

Thats the new assault rifle.....tough idk its name it should hold the HS name (as their pistol HS 2000)

This is what i pulled out:

Uses 5,56 NATO round, 500 mm long barrel,grenade launcher, laser with 100 meter range and it uses a scope i never seen before (its a scope in which u look with both eyes, like binoculars) and it weights only 2.3 kg (and it also has far less parts which enables easier reloading and other stuff)

[BillyChaka]

Vidar, on 19 Dec 2006, 08:12, said:

The M-16 is still a bunch of crap, it was the wrong decision to ship these weapons to the troops after all.

2 guns are missing. The HK G36 and the HK XM90

Neither of those are used have been used in combat. XM series has been cancelled. The M16 is a capable weapon.

Edited by BillyChaka, 19 December 2006 - 20:34.

[Eddy01741]

BillyChaka, on 18 Dec 2006, 18:09, said:

Well, the Military is a very conservative American television channel.

I know, the americans have the M-14, garand, springfield, AND the M-16 on the list, that's almost half the list, but not my fault. and cattman, yes, i know, the L-85 was remarked to be one of the most accurate assault rifles. Anyways,t eh M-16 is fine, it's doing very well for a gun about 40 years old in design, it at least is SUFFICIENT for now, if we want superiority over all others that would be like pulling a F-22 Raptor, great fighter, but so f*cking expensive.

[DerKrieger]

Cattman2236, on 18 Dec 2006, 19:33, said:

Bah the L85-A2 (SA-80) is a superb weapon which has proved to be better than the M16 and the AK-101

You said it was accurate-so is the M-16 (as mentioned before, I own one), but I have heard bad things about the reliability of both among the troops who use them (and that includes the L-85A2 version). The good things about the L-85A2; it's accurate and compact. The bad news is that it lets in sand/dirt/water and is somewhat fragile (from what I've heard about it: http://www.madogre.c...es/Jan_2006.htm a little over halfway down from the middle of the page). Also note that the SAS and Royal Marines commandos generally use the M-16/M-4. The later models of the M-16 are more reliable than the POS Viet-Nam era M-16A1 and the modern .223 ammo is much better than the dirty early cartridges, but sand is still the M-16's weakness. To be frank, the G-36 is better than both the M-16 and the L-85...
.

Eddy01741, on 18 Dec 2006, 21:03, said:

Ak-101= horrible, no matter how much they made it lighter, it's still as inacccurate as teh Ak-47, and with all the new plastic lightweight stuff, the reliability and durabiliity of the Ak-101 is terrible in comparison to the Ak-47, it's not even russia's current assault rifle (that would be the AN-94 IIRC).

The Ak-101 is more accurate than the AK-47 and is much lighter and probably just as durable- the current standard issue rifle of the Russian army is the AK-74M (AN-94 is for special forces, and the AK-101 is a AK-74M rechambered for the .223 round)
A while ago I saw a program on the Military Channel that compared the M-16 with the AK-47. The M-16 was determined to be more accurate and more controlable using the fully automatic function than the AK. The AK was determined to be more durable and dependable than the M-16. The 7.62 Russian round was determined to be much better in all respects except one when compared to the 5.56mm NATO round. The 5.56mm had a flatter trajectory than the 7.62. Hence why the Dragunov rifle was invented (the Dragunov is a fire-support riufle, not a sniper rifle- it was designed to give Soviet infantry greater range since the Kalashnikov was so inaccurate and low-powered).

The 7.62 Russian would penetrate 8 inches of solid pine wood but the 5.56mm would not. The 7.62 shattered a concrete cinder block, but the 5.56 put a tiny hole in it. The block was left intact. I know which gun I would choose given these two choices. If the M-16 was modified for, say, 6.5mm or 6.8mm, then we'd be talking...

[Eddy01741]

No, actually, the An-94 is the official rifle, they just havn't mass produced it enough, so they only gave it to elite (spec forces) troops. And the Ak-101like the Ak-74M is plastic, plastic isn't as durable as wood, but it's much lighter (you can drive over an AK with a truck, i don't think you can drie over a Ak-47M or a Ak-101 with a truck). Anyways, i saw that program too, they compared lots of stuff (like sabre vs. Mig=15, spitfire vs. BF-109, sherman vs. Tiger etc.). Anyways, i know that the Ak-47 is probably the most durable and reliable rifle in the world, and i know about the dragunov (somebody brought that up like a year ago on some other forum complaining about why BF2 put a dragunov as a sniper rifle lol), anyways, at least we have hope from the HK M468 design (M4 6.8mm Grendel), It's a M-4, but with a new receiver basically clambered for the 6.8mm round and that it's more reliabile than the M-4 gas system.

[Andrewillis]

where is my beloved FN 2000!!!!

[Eddy01741]

Uh, lets see, combat checklist:
Service time X
Combat proven X

Okay, those are some of the two most important, and it pretty much fails those two already. BTW, kinda off topic, but what's up with the surge in posts here, there was like a total abandonment (last post was like Dec. 27) then suddenly posts pop up outta nowhere (that's good though).

[AllStarZ]

Do you know why the AK is so reliable? Can anyone tell me why?

Edited by AllStarZ, 10 January 2007 - 00:39.

[Eddy01741]

Because the bolt carrier is permantly attached to the gas rod/piston, so less moving parts, more simplicity, more reliability.

[AllStarZ]

There's more.

[DerKrieger]

I'd have to add that the spaces between the bolt and stationary parts of the mechanism allow for the tolerances of the Kalashnikov, as well as how the bolt ejects spent cartridges.

[AllStarZ]

Yes. Also the hammer mechanism is incredibly simple.

[LCPL Carrow]

I stand by the M14 as a fist choice, followed by the M16. The AK may be simpler but I find accurate range (lighter round of the M16 will go farther and drop less than the 7.62), rate of fire, infrequency of jams, and accuracy more important than durability and simplicity. You're not SUPPOSED to bury, submerge, mash, run over, or otherwise abuse a rifle. You're supposed to take care of it, and if you do then you will never have a problem with your M16. By the way, the M16 is very easy to take care of. More complicated than an AK, yes, but it is still so easy to take care of that a caveman could do it.

[Alias]

The M16 has helluva more jams than an AK.

Edited by Alias, 19 January 2007 - 04:38.

[LCPL Carrow]

Not in my experience. I've had an M16 jam once. I still haven't had the opportunity to fire an AK, but I've spoken to someone who has, and he says that it sucks. That's the best I have to go on until I get the chance to fire the AK enough to judge the frequency of jams.

[Sic]

The AK also is highly inaccurate. But it's cheaper AFAIK and most armies use it.