AK47 vs M16 (again...)

Actually Isreali reserves use M-16 variants and so do many special forces around the world, including the SAS. The rifle as has been stated hundreds of times is built for highly trained troops who canc lean it reguarly whilst the AK is built for the opposite. There is no need to bring nationalities into this, just dicuss the firearms stated.

 

I haven't a clue anymore what point he is trying to make.
To those that think Americans are nationalistic.. we are UN loving, one world government types compared to this guy

 

No but when we speak about AK-47 vs M-16 ur allways present words r:
----M-16 US soldiers and excelent marksmans
---AK-47 users untrained pesants who dont know how to use and clean gun,they know to point and press triger.

I sow that more then few time on this forum.Why i mention sport? If small and poor country can make the best world teams in some sport,betther then rich countrys,why small and poor country cant make betther soldiers then rich US?

Just wanted to point that is unfair judgment.
And i ask what countrys use M-16 coz of price comparation.If u say SAS,it is small military unit not an army.And if u say Israely reservist,again it is not army.

 

ok fair shout on that, but my point does prove that if good soldiers choose it, it can't be that bad.

and with the sports teams it boils down to luck, training, personal skill and various other smaller factors. It's true that most rifles will out shoot the shooter.

 

As u see SAS is elite force,and UK use diferent rifles for they own army.Serbian elite forces (like SAS) use H&K weapons,snipers,driwe Humwees,so basicly they use best what money can buy,but price diference,when we comparing quality? I think that thing made AK-47 most popular assault rifle on the world,and i dont think that M-16 is betther weapon,again shooter make diference.

 

O yeh the AK-47 is undoubtly the cheaper weapon, because its widely available and cheap to produce, I think the cheapest I saw during my stay in Uganda was around $6(US)

 

Perhaps you can point to where I said that? I don't recall making any such statement. You can draw that conclusion if you like and IMo there is some truth to it but I didn't say it, you did.

I don't think it would prove anything other than that there were people in that country good at that particular sport. What sports are Serbians better than the US at again?

Still not sure what point you are trying to make. Nations choose their service rifles based on other factors than just quality. Everything from corruption, nationalism, politics, economy etc can play a part in that decision.

 

Greig i dod not point directly on u,when i say that ppl here say that US soldiers r good marksmans and all otther AK users peasants,but just surf trough this topic and u will see it ur self.

And in what sports r serbian betther then us:

We beat ur asses in world championship in atlanta in basketball,in ur own country.

In waterpolo we r curently champions of europe.

In woleyball,we regulary kick US asses,and we r allways in top 5 world countrys.

Enought? Il remind u that serbian population is below 10 mil,like half of NY.

When we speak about weapons some country use,nobody else use M-16.U said few reasons,but again,most of NATO countrys use F-16,what is,far more expencive then load off guns,but they dont use M-16.

 

I'm not a big basketball fan so I'm not sure what you world championships you are referring to. I thought the FIBA world championships were in Japan in 2006? What is their record versus the US team over the years? One game doesn't make for dominance in a sport.

*stifles yawn* amazing...truly

I also don't follow this sport but when did Serbia win the olympic competition and what is their lifeteme record against the US?

That would be your problem, not ours

And that proves exactly what?


ps..and what does any of this have to do with AK-47 versus M-16?

 

This is disintegrating rapidly... :lol:

Now, I understand that the conclusion on "which is best" is personal and subjective, and one must remember to add "which is best at WHAT" to that question... or else it becomes unanswerable.

Some common ground:
The AK 47 and M16 have different origins, were made during different times, and with different philosophies in mind. Production quality aside, this will mean that some qualities of either gun will be superior or inferior to the other. For example:


- Looser tolerances in the AK 47 mean that the M16 is more accurate, but the AK 47 is more reliable.

- The smaller, faster American cartridge has a significant edge in long range shooting (which the AK 47 was not designed for), while the Russian projectile has a better terminal performance due to heavier weight.

As for accuracy, the AK 47 should be considered less accurate. It has crude sights and looser tolerances, so that only stands to fact.

Indeed, as many have mentioned, IF the AK 47 had been superior, why don't special forces units like the SAS use it, if they use only the best? Because the M16 suits them better.

Now, as has been effectively argued for, a peasant, guerrilla fighter, or soldier operating in dirty conditions at close ranges would prefer an AK 47.

I would equip my disciplined army with M16s and my sponsored guerrila rebellion in Africa with AK 47's... which is whats happening all over the world.


End note : As for small sporting nations doing well, Norway, a country of 4.5 million, got the most gold medals of all nations in the 2002 winter olympics. That's like, half the population of Serbia!

 

And Norway doesn't use either M16 or the AK47 - The're obviously individualists

 

Simply speaking of accuracy, the M-16 is a quite a bit better. Let's first define define accuracy. This is the ability of a rifle to shoot small groups consistently. The smaller the groups the rifles can regulary produce, the more accurate it is.

The M-16 in any configuration is more accurate than the AK. Take it from someone who has fired both on several occassions. Shooting is my greatest hobby and one that I'm rather good at (not trying to sound arrogant, mind you).

 

It was in atlanta,US,not last one championship.remember that Serbian and Monteneggro split in that time,and it make some rumble in ur NT,doing Japan cup.But still,from 1996 till 2006 we winned all that can be winned.


Calhoun,can i ask u,do u ewer been in combat situation?It is slight diferent then shoothing in fixed target,enemy try to hide,and evoid ur boulet
When i was in combat,i moustly did not sow my enemy,only flame from weapon,etc.I fighted in heawy tree cowered area,when,accuracy ower 200m does not mean much,coz u see max 100m in front.In some situation,it was on clear ground,but again,i could not see my enemy.Only time i sow them,was when we ambush them,but i dont think that they sow us...
If u wanna accurate rifle for long rane fights,use bolt action WWII rifles,they r perfect for that.
I had no any combat in urban areas,so i cant be precise how long ranged r urban engagments,but i doubth that is ower 300m again.
U can ask,what is fancy paper advantage and what is real combat advantage,and that choose what u prefer more.

And about special units rifles,u said that SAS use M-16 i just bolive on that,and i dont hawe reason not to do like that,but if is only SAS,what is in UK,any otther country special forces use them? Serbian SPec. forces use some otther foreign weapons for some diferent reasons then "AK is bad rifle",but i spoked for anti-terrorist units.Otther special units use mostly AK-47 in 5.56 NATO cal,and regular 7.62x39.

 

SAS select their own personal weapons depending on situation and personal preference. Some will use H&K weapons, but most tend to use a M-16 variant mainly for its accuarcy and it's wide range of variations.
I believe the same thing applies in most other special forces, that a soldiers choose his own personal gear in accordance with the situation.
You'll notice thogh that the SAS or other special forces don't use the AK-47 for the reason of accuary, they need to make every shot count, and thats where the M-16s accuarcy makes its self worthwhile.

 

Just to point out...

There is a difference between saying

"Every AK-47 is in the hands of untrained peasants"

and

"The AK-47 is ideal for use by untrained peasants"

 

I'm not sure which world you live in but in the one that I live in the US won the gold medal in both Men's and Women's basketball at Atlanta in 1996. You also conveniently ignored my question about lifetime win/loss records versus the US. After all that would tell us more about how dominant a country was in sports rather than just one game.
If you want to pick on somebody closer to your own size why not compare total olympic medals won by say Canada compared to (the former) Yugoslavia. A quick look I find about 99 total medals over all the years of competition for Yugoslavia whereas I find 336 total medals for Canada during the same period. What's up with that if Yugo/Serbs are such dominant sporting types?

 

My bad,it was Indianapolis,u can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIBA_World_Championship
that we win world cup in 1998. and 2002. (Athens and Indianapolis).
And i picked team sports coz military is team work,not solo macho rambo action,and i dont see what SFR Yugoslavia got to do with Serbia.

And good point Ricky,but it was not presented like that ofently.

 

Sinnisa;
I have not seen combat. I'm just stating from experience about accuracy alone. However, having been trained by the US Army with the M-16 and having experience with it, I would choose to go to combat with it rather than the AK. I'm confident that I can hit what I'm aiming at with the M-16 and I know how to properly use and care for it.

 

Alright then.

 

I can hit 30x30cm target from 250m,without any problem what i think that is decent accuracy.With PKT i can hit target that size from more then 400m (on bipod).On 100m my group was not larger then 10 cm in single shot mode,in full auto and short bursts it was not so accurate,(3 shot burst is maybe 40 cm in radius),so i think that is enought accuracy for assault rifle.