 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
I've never used an AK so I'm curious. I'm not making a poll because I want to know why you hold your opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Static Universe
|
|
M-16 A2's are only slightly better than A1s. I used A1s in the Nat'l Guard and A2s in the Army and the A2's jammed only marginally less.
The AK is considered to be a superior weapon to the M16.
Edit: Forgot to mention I fired a few rounds out of an AK once, and it seemed about as accurate as the M16. The M16 is very accurate out to about 300 meters. I heard the big difference is that the Ak jams less.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
ah, its about time someone creates an interesting thread .
Well, they both have their advantages and disadvantages, and of course, the whole arguement depends opn whether we are talkin the M16a1 ( ) or the M16a2 ( ).
The Ak-47 is famous for its low cost, outstanding maintainability, high reliability and extraordinary durability, which are all pluses in hardcore battle conditions. Its 7.62 mm round packs a punch too (doesnt hold a lick against the 30-06 of the M1 and M14 tho), but the rifle, do to its 'loose' construction (which contributes to its reliability) isnt the most accurate military service rifle. But its range is effective out to 300 meters, IIRC.
Overall, id say the M16a2 is definately a better rifle. Its outstanding in everyway, tho it has been critisized for its high need of maintainance and its round, the standard 5.56 mm NATO high velocity cartridge. It has excelent piercing capabilities, but lacks stopping power. It tends to punch little neat holes through its victims, like an ice pick, rather than tearing through the insides. The former requires very accurate shooting thru the 'kill zones' (heart, throat, head, etc), the latter you dont have to be so accurate because its tears along large swaths of flesh.
No matter tho, its effective range of nearly 500 meters is a huge plus.
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
Serb, that IS a cool looking rifle, but the clip seems out of place somehow...seems as if it would get in the way and get jolted a lot, but I dunno.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:25
|
|
I prefer the M-16, though both weapons have their advantages. The lighter weight of the M-16 and its ammo are an advantage. Although I'd rather have an AK for hand to hand combat, I'd rather have more ammo with an M-16 and avoid the hand to hand if at all possible. The greater range of the M-16 isn't all that likely of an advantage to me in combat (I could only hit targets at 300 meters 50% of the time at best), its accuracy advantage at all ranges is still handy. In adverse conditions the AK is more reliable, although later versions of the M-16 improved its reliability, the advantage still lies with the AK. The M-16 is easier to clean though. Both weapons have some problems with automatic fire, the AK kicks enough to take you off of the target more quickly, while the M-16's high rate of fire tears through your ammo in a hurry. So I give an edge to the M-16 overall. To be fair though, the M-16 is quite a bit younger than the AK, and on the whole the AK is a much more successful weapon.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2003 07:27
Attachment: 
)
|
