AK-47 or M-16? which do you prefer?
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
I lost count of the many times I've seen this asked. (Not just on Fakku, anywhere)
I'll give you an abridged version, cause I'm too lazy to answer all the way.
Reliability obviously goes to the AK, however with regular care (Something all US soldiers are taught to do anyway) The M-16 is a very reliable weapon, even over in sand-land.
Accuracy, instead of having you watch a TV show, I'll give you the reason why.
M-16 is better, the in-line stock (As in directed towards the shoulder) Helps push all recoil directly back instead of partially down, therefore allowing you to maintain the bead on your target better. The AK's reciever is above the stock of the weapon, pushing part of the energy down, which raises the muzzle further and makes it hard to realign with your target.
As for bullet size, there is a reason the US military choose to chamber the M-16 in 5.56 as opposed to the 7.62 the AK (And previous US service weapon the M-14 had) While obviously sheer distance would go to the AK, and the ability to punch through body armor and the like. But as for lethality, it'd be a close one, as the 5.56 is designed to tumble as it hits flesh, therefore creating a larger cavity. And the 7.62 has a tendency to just go straight through, which, depending on the location could still allow the victim to return fire. Next, after a study, it was found most firefights take place within 100 yds or less. So having a heavier rifle/bullet would just be worthless anyway. Not to mention there is a variant of the M-16 that fires the 7.62, getting rid of all the comparisons anyway. There's more, but I don't care to say it.
Jesus, why do I know all of this?
I'll give you an abridged version, cause I'm too lazy to answer all the way.
Reliability obviously goes to the AK, however with regular care (Something all US soldiers are taught to do anyway) The M-16 is a very reliable weapon, even over in sand-land.
Accuracy, instead of having you watch a TV show, I'll give you the reason why.
M-16 is better, the in-line stock (As in directed towards the shoulder) Helps push all recoil directly back instead of partially down, therefore allowing you to maintain the bead on your target better. The AK's reciever is above the stock of the weapon, pushing part of the energy down, which raises the muzzle further and makes it hard to realign with your target.
As for bullet size, there is a reason the US military choose to chamber the M-16 in 5.56 as opposed to the 7.62 the AK (And previous US service weapon the M-14 had) While obviously sheer distance would go to the AK, and the ability to punch through body armor and the like. But as for lethality, it'd be a close one, as the 5.56 is designed to tumble as it hits flesh, therefore creating a larger cavity. And the 7.62 has a tendency to just go straight through, which, depending on the location could still allow the victim to return fire. Next, after a study, it was found most firefights take place within 100 yds or less. So having a heavier rifle/bullet would just be worthless anyway. Not to mention there is a variant of the M-16 that fires the 7.62, getting rid of all the comparisons anyway. There's more, but I don't care to say it.
Jesus, why do I know all of this?
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
...don't forget costs.
An advanced and wealthy nation like the USA can afford to equip its troops with an expensive weapon like the M-16. If you're a third world nation, you might want to go with an AK. That's sheer price.
Another thing in the AK's favor is how "dumb" the weapon is. It's easy to de- and reassemble. You can train a teenager to fire and use one within a couple of hours. Give me a day and they'll also know how to take care of the weapon.
The M-16 is lot more complex, so training on it is more expensive. The AK's simple construction also means that it's cheaper to buy parts for it.
...and if you really want to compare the an AK with the M-16, then it should really be the AK-74. (There is a reason the Russian Federation fields it).
Part of the reason why the AK-47 is still so widespread is that it's already in use and in huger numbers. People are already trained on it, there is enough ammo out there to wage not one, but *two* world wars. Finally a lot of people feel that a bigger bullet is better... oh and everyone and your uncle knows how to manufacture one.
All of these makes the AK the poor men's assault rifle, and the weapon of choice for massive conscripted armies.
Smaller professional armies will want something more sophisticated... and wish they could get it as cheap as an AK.
Whenever it comes to the M-16 I always have to mention the AR-18. Armalite made a version of the M-16 that used a piston, and was made of stamped steel instead machined aluminum. It would have been cheaper and more reliable than the M-16. Colt never built it. Apparently it's against their company policy to make a weapon that's not expensive.
The M-16 is a good weapon. But if you read what I wrote above you'll realize that armies look for more in a weapon. A weapon not only has to be powerful but cheap and easy to use as well and procurement is always a compromise.
So if it was such a great weapon, why didn't anyone actually use it?
Well matter of fact they do.
See this guy?
In typical H&K fashion, the company bought a good design (like they did for the G3) and reworked it to their own taste. In this case it was little more than H&K designers going crazy with a futuristic shell.
However underneath the "exotic" plastic, this gun is a genuine AR-18.
H&K tried to sell this design back to America when they made the XM8
...yes. Underneath the plastic, this gun too is an AR-18.
An advanced and wealthy nation like the USA can afford to equip its troops with an expensive weapon like the M-16. If you're a third world nation, you might want to go with an AK. That's sheer price.
Another thing in the AK's favor is how "dumb" the weapon is. It's easy to de- and reassemble. You can train a teenager to fire and use one within a couple of hours. Give me a day and they'll also know how to take care of the weapon.
The M-16 is lot more complex, so training on it is more expensive. The AK's simple construction also means that it's cheaper to buy parts for it.
...and if you really want to compare the an AK with the M-16, then it should really be the AK-74. (There is a reason the Russian Federation fields it).
Part of the reason why the AK-47 is still so widespread is that it's already in use and in huger numbers. People are already trained on it, there is enough ammo out there to wage not one, but *two* world wars. Finally a lot of people feel that a bigger bullet is better... oh and everyone and your uncle knows how to manufacture one.
All of these makes the AK the poor men's assault rifle, and the weapon of choice for massive conscripted armies.
Smaller professional armies will want something more sophisticated... and wish they could get it as cheap as an AK.
Whenever it comes to the M-16 I always have to mention the AR-18. Armalite made a version of the M-16 that used a piston, and was made of stamped steel instead machined aluminum. It would have been cheaper and more reliable than the M-16. Colt never built it. Apparently it's against their company policy to make a weapon that's not expensive.
The M-16 is a good weapon. But if you read what I wrote above you'll realize that armies look for more in a weapon. A weapon not only has to be powerful but cheap and easy to use as well and procurement is always a compromise.
So if it was such a great weapon, why didn't anyone actually use it?
Well matter of fact they do.
See this guy?
In typical H&K fashion, the company bought a good design (like they did for the G3) and reworked it to their own taste. In this case it was little more than H&K designers going crazy with a futuristic shell.
However underneath the "exotic" plastic, this gun is a genuine AR-18.
H&K tried to sell this design back to America when they made the XM8
...yes. Underneath the plastic, this gun too is an AR-18.
