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

fidy caps busted

OMG... you are all guns expert

hoping not make anyone of you furious!!

AK-47 is a good choice...
BUT don't buy a cheap chinese AK-47 in US market.. It is a shitty fake.
Russian AK-47 is a kickass gun!!

Are they? Actually Special forces can use whatever they want to use as long as tehy can qualify with the weapon. Most use different weapons for different situations, and I guaruntee you they aren't using 1500 dollar M4s, no they use HKs and FALs...

GIAT FAMAS assault rifle
http://world.guns.ru/assault/famas_f1.jpg

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as21-e.htm

mikhail jus came out with his own vodka.... of course it wont kill as many people as his last invention.

Indeed.

HK's are very populars these days with SF's.
And back to the topic... AK's are more realistic for long term combat. You wont have a tight shot group but you can spray and pray all day long with no problems. :thumbsup

M16 is far more reliable