M-16 VS Kalashnikov....What do you think ?
 

Once one of russian rumour disputed about weapons, He's sure that Kalashnikov much better then M-16.
I know that sight and rate of fire kalashnikov is sucks, but he talks me that Ak-47 super for iraq and our soldiers take AK-47 like trophy and then using instead of m-16...

Then he showed me u.s. texts where u.s. army going to change all M-16 to another models (I do not exactly remember).
What you think - is M-16 really worse than AK-47 ... :1orglaugh ?

If not - send me some url with description of M-16 and Kalashnikov to help me to convince him. thanks.

i second that.

M-16 in a shooting competition or for long range "huting" ; )

AK-47 in combat, camping trip...anywhere shit can get dirty.

Heres one of mine, only had it for a year & it needs a new barrel, i pump 300 rounds a week through it, & i can put 30 in a target within 1/2 inch

http://www.pr0.net/toscale.gif

An AK-47 is called a "rattle gun" because all the parts are placed so that sand/dirt/water, & random shit could get in the mechanism, but it would still fire.

Where as the m-16 with a little dirt might blow up in your face, or cease to fire.

So in combat conditions, within 2-300 meters, the AK-47 is superior.

I'll see yours and raise you mine with a CJ T-shirt in the pic. :thumbsup

http://ampcontent.com/Pikz/Shooting1.jpg


EDIT.....Shit, that's my AR-15. Nevermind. :disgust

Another year or 2 & i'll need a scope too ; )D

You need to tell me where to get an a2 rail adapter for mounting one.

yeah , pr0 is very correct

thanks pr0, but still need some urls about M16 and AK-47, wepons guru post here :)

you were clever enough to find gfy and post - but no one apparently told you about a super secret site called google.com that can actually search the web for information and give you the links.

BTW its not a secret you know. the AK was always been vastly superior to the M16 in combat. the M16 is much more complicated and delicate and too much so for crawling around in the mud. there is no argument or debate. anyone who served in vietnam typically says the same thing.

just link him to this thread...i'm a certified weapons expert,...hahaha

i wouldn't go as far as vastly, but it was quite a bit more effective

of course the kill ratio in vietnam was 20:1

so unless that was just from airstrikes....i doubt it was "vastly" superior

AK-74 is even better :)

well hello... airstrikes, fighter planes/napalm and helicopter gunships strafing everything that moves, artillery, carpet bombing etc etc etc.

i am not a weapons specialist... not even sure what that means. my tiger style is quite strong though and my crane technique is unbeatable however.

when M16s were first introduced in vietnam they were killing more US soldiers than AK-47s were by constant jamming and failing. only after changing powders in the ammunition, and learning they had to constantly clean the gun all day everyday, did a lot of that stop.

other than that, no one that knows anything about weapons is going to argue that the M16 is better in combat conditions than the AK.

isn't ar-15 the same as M-16?

AK-74 less reliable then AK -47, that cant say the same about M16A1 .....A3

not that much less reliable, and more accurate and not as loud

AK-47 , an terrorist M16.... like it so much....

maybe yes , maybe no :321GFY

love this one , kill some bullshitz... :1orglaugh :321GFY :thumbsup

ar-15 is just semi automatic while m-16 is automatic from what I remember,

but maybe I'm wrong, to lazy to look it up :upsidedow

The M16 has some better qualities then ak47 for example its way more accurate then AK-47, m16 has better bullet power and the fire of the bullets goes in circling motion which maximize the damage to the target in like 70% more.The m16 can easy deal with water and rainy weather condition but does not support desert weather and can get jammed pretty easy if some send gets to it... :) There are many versions for the m16 which reduce the weight of the original rifle and make it lighter to allow advantage of speed in built areas

Seems to me that pr0 is very much a weapons guru.

thanks to all guys, tomorrow post here what he saying I think its enouph to convince him:)

I sleep with mine, & once a week lay in sexual congress with my rifle. I think its healthy & I like to think it creates a strong bond between us. :helpme

I carried and used the M-16 for 13 months, while with the 1st of the 7th Cav in Nam in 65-66. We were a "spearhead" batallion so we were always in contact. I can't begin to tell you how many rounds went through that rifle. It was constantly in use and I always carried 2000 rounds on me.

I never had it jam on me, even in the dust, dirt and mud I was constantly in. To "clean" it, I just opened the bolt, held it under water and swished it around for a moment and then fired off a round to 'clean' it. Always worked for me.

It didn't 'rattle' when I walked, as I head the AKs do (when they walked into our ambushes).

Life on the line? I'll take an M-16 ANYfuckingTIME! Most of you have just used them for 'plinking' and use has been, at best, random. Try using one all day, all night, every day, and see what you walk away with. Oh, and it's not a fair test if your target isn't constantly shooting back at you.

"We Were Soldiers" isn't a movie to me. It's a memory!

lmao :1orglaugh

I carried one (m16) shit, anyone in the army carried one. THey're great. I would much rather have an mp5... or a FAL but to me those are the two best weapons, FAL any day over the AK or AR15...

The M4 which was to replace the M16 is smaller, has a shorter range but it's the same round, which is really not as lethal as you think, which someone mentioned above, but if you know anything about combat... you shoot someone and he doesn't die it takes 3 men on average to lift him out of the area... so instead of killing one you took out 4 from the fight... wounding someone is almost always better.

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/ has lots of info about the AK-47.

There was a History Channel documentary on this, and they tested them both. They had a whole series of examples, and situations they put them through. From just basic shooting, to environments, and so forth.

The AK-47 is superior to the M-16.

:pimp

Yep. Heard the same thing about the M4. Apparently a very nice weapon.

:thumbsup

"I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work - for example a lawnmower."

? Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the AK-47 assault rifle

M-16s had all sorts of jamming problems during the Vietnam war. It was so bad that that US soldiers would often pick up & use AK-47s since they were more reliable.

30+ years later, I see the M-16 is still a jamming piece of shit.

Thats why US special forces are using captured AKs.

I carried an M16 for four years of my life. While I never was in combat, I got a kick out of firing the gun and more often than not I could found on the rifle range. Never had one jam up on me. Same thing when out in the field firing blanks.

AK less accurate but larger round and more robust, so would prefer the AK up to a coupla hundred yards. Saw at TV prog a year or so where they fired both at 200 yards at a target situated behind a tree. The M16 round stuck in the tree, the AK blew a f****ing great hole in the tree. But the AK couldnt hit shit at longer range, the M16 did. Friend of mine in the Israeli army told me they had found AKs stuck muzzle down in the ground which they then pulled through and fired. With an M16 you would have got your arms blown off, if it had fired at all. My army (the British) have the SA-80. The mk1 probably wouldnt have fired half the time anyway, no matter how clean you kept it, though I understand the latest mark is OK.

stupid noob, fix SIG :Oh crap

:smokin

Yeah AK-47 was far more reliable in Vietnam :thumbsup

You all talk about how good m16 is if you keep it nice and clean.
Of course it doesnt jam during practice shooting when you clean it after every use.

The thing jams when you're out in the desert or in the jungle. When there is war going on around and you simply dont have the time or mean to clean it. In the middle of the battle it gets some sand or some water inside and all of the sudden it stops working. Thats when it makes a difference.

I've shot with the AR-15 aka M16. That gun is awesome and packs one nasty punch.

Never shot the AK but its rep as a top notch weapon is well known around the world.

In any situation I would have to choose between an AK-47 or M16 based on the need. Each weapon has its benifits and downfalls, in the heat of battle your needs are always changing.

M-16 shoots a .22 caliber bullet and wounds it's victims more than it kills. A wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy because a wounded enemy takes 2 or more additional enemy soldiers to care for him where as a dead enemy does not require anyone.

Also US went to the m-16 .222 caliber round because soldiers can carry about 30% more rounds with the same weight as what they were used too. They used to use .308 rounds (7.62mm x 51mm) in the M-14 which is the same caliber as an AK-47 round (7.62 x 39mm). just slightly longer casing and powder lengthening the case to 51mm

All of you I'm sure have heard of the 30-06 (M1-Garand) This is what US used before the M-14 .308. Still a 30 caliber bullet just slightly longer case yet 7.62 x 59mm. This is the grandaddy of all the 7.62mm 30 caliber bullets.

For flat out kill power any of the 30 caliber bullets are far superior than a twinky m-16 .222 round as it's only .22 caliber, very small, but very very fast and when it hits your target it tumbles. So you hit them in the leg it might end up in his gut wounding him even more. You hit the same target in the same spot with a .308 and it will most likely just blow the leg off. Hit him in the chest with a 30 caliber and your kill factor is much higher than the little 22 caliber m-16

To put it simple, bigger is better.

Like pr0 said, the AK47's are better for desert combat because it's almost impossible for them to get jammed up.

P.S. Doesn't the US army use M4s or something now, not M16s?

I used the M14 when I was in the Army. Good rifle...

from 600 yards (with out scope) I could put it in a 1 foot bulls eye. And at 600 yards that bulls eye is a tiny spec.

M-16 VS Kalashnikov. Was on TV the other day, think it was the History channel.

I saw lot of M16 and kalashnikov fucked up at Guyana training...
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/411...rei99gy.th.jpghttp://img14.imageshack.us/img14/622...ei112fn.th.jpghttp://img14.imageshack.us/img14/595...rei43gj.th.jpg

FRF2, my best friend....
http://www.nme.de/CGI-SHL/NME/VIEWPI...ID=2708&cat=36

actually it's not a .22 it is slightly larger .223 (5.56mm)

what you say about that piece guys?

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm

http://www.floridagunworks.com/Merch...REARMS+R+SAR+T

woo woo

M16A2 (The version Canadians added 109 updates to), is more accurate (especially in full auto), less recoil, lightweight.

The AK is more reliable, cheaper, and much more powerful.

I've used the C7 assault rifle (Canadian M16) when I was in the army, and owned a Chinese SKS (semi auto predecesor to AK) and would take the C7 any day. I also owned an FN battle rifle (Indian L1A1 actually) and man that thing really packed a punch.

Who cares I am in the UK and here is the baddest weapon you can buy in a shop legally.

http://www.resource.nsw.gov.au/murfy.../Newspaper.gif