I would almost put the M16 and M4 in the same catagory. But since they are seperate, I voted for the M16. The M16A4 doesn't have the trivial problems that face the M4 Carbine.
Originally posted by hooah11: I would almost put the M16 and M4 in the same catagory. But since they are seperate, I voted for the M16. The M16A4 doesn't have the trivial problems that face the M4 Carbine.
Exactly....but then again, we are kinda causing our own problems by arming infantrymen with a weapon that was never designed to be used as a general issue weapon.....
I would have to say the M14 if I need accuracy over range. If I need to to very close combat, less than block to block, an AK47. Anything inbetween, the M16, or M249SAW.
Originally posted by animematt: I would have to say the M14 if I need accuracy over range. If I need to to very close combat, less than block to block, an AK47. Anything inbetween, the M16, or M249SAW.
Even in CQB ranges I'd take an M16/M4 over an AK any day of the week. More ergonomic, easier to shoot and the 5.56mm round at close range trumps the Soviet 7.62mm at wound ballistics any day of the week.
Originally posted by animematt: I would have to say the M14 if I need accuracy over range. If I need to to very close combat, less than block to block, an AK47. Anything inbetween, the M16, or M249SAW.
Even in CQB ranges I'd take an M16/M4 over an AK any day of the week. More ergonomic, easier to shoot and the 5.56mm round at close range trumps the Soviet 7.62mm at wound ballistics any day of the week.
You do know that the AK-47 was first used in 1949? that is 12 years before the first M16 came out, and the M16 used today was made much later.....So, it's kinda obvious to take the newer gun, The AK-47 doesn't suck, The fact that it lasted for so many years is actually a sign of how GOOD it actuaaly was. The Ak-47 was not plagued by some of the other problems that the M16 did befall, The AK-47 for it's age, Is actually a very remarkable gun, the M16 is quite remarkable as well, but not quite as remarkable as the 47 is.
Originally posted by animematt: I would have to say the M14 if I need accuracy over range. If I need to to very close combat, less than block to block, an AK47. Anything inbetween, the M16, or M249SAW.
Even in CQB ranges I'd take an M16/M4 over an AK any day of the week. More ergonomic, easier to shoot and the 5.56mm round at close range trumps the Soviet 7.62mm at wound ballistics any day of the week.
for it's age, I would say the Ak does pretty well, being made 4 years after the end of WW2. For the Ak to not be plagued by some of the problems that the younger (not by much) M16 is a sign of how remarkable the Ak-47 actually is. Granted, The M16 is remarkable as well, but not nearlly as much as the AK-47.
How do you know that the AK didn't have teething problems during it's early fielding????? The M16's problems were due to a rushed R&D and fielding as well as the Army using cartridges that were not within the M16's original specs.
Again, Deity, you have a lot of book knowledge, but it really seems you don't have any practical experience.
The Ak-47, like all russian technology, requires very little work, The M16, due to cheap magazine production, often jams. The AK rarely has that problem. The M16 requires often cleaning and if it is not oiled properley, will be damaged. The Ak-47 requires little cleaning, and when cleaning is needed, It is very easy to open up and put back together (unlike the M16). The M-16 had corrosion problems resulting in extraction troubles, The Ak did not experience this problem. The Ak-47 stays a t a constant temperature during a constant fire, the M16 on the other hand, will heat up and cool down at random spurts while firing, often getting to temperatures that are uncomfortable for the user. All of this leads to the conclusion that the AK-47 is much more reliable than the M16
Originally posted by DeitySukhoi: The Ak-47, like all russian technology, requires very little work, The M16, due to cheap magazine production, often jams. The AK rarely has that problem.
This is about the only thing in your whole post you got right. Yes the military issues flimsy magazines (magazines are considered expendable items and we are not going to spend a ton of money on something that is just going to get thrown away in combat), but if you use the same guage mags as an AK they are a wash.
quote:
The M16 requires often cleaning and if it is not oiled properley, will be damaged. The Ak-47 requires little cleaning, and when cleaning is needed, It is very easy to open up and put back together (unlike the M16).
The M16 needs a lot less maintenance than you think. The AK needs more than you are alluding to. My weapon in Iraq just needed a wipedown and a few small drops of oil and it was good to go. And and M16 is MUCH easier to field strip. When was the last time you took apart and cleaned either? Oh, that's right, you've never cleaned one...
quote:
The M-16 had corrosion problems resulting in extraction troubles, The Ak did not experience this problem.
This issue was due to MacNamara and his Whiz Kids. The corrosion problem of the M16 was solved early in the fielding process by chrome plating the chamber and bore (Eugene Stoner should have known better. Chrome plating barrels was nothing new). No problems after that.
quote:
The Ak-47 stays a t a constant temperature during a constant fire, the M16 on the other hand, will heat up and cool down at random spurts while firing, often getting to temperatures that are uncomfortable for the user.
Uhm...no... Both will heat up about the same and stay hot. The M16 has MUCH better heat shields in the handguards than an AK and is much more comfortable to shoot over long durations.
quote:
All of this leads to the conclusion that the AK-47 is much more reliable than the M16
More reliable? Yes. It's looser tolerances and long stroke piston sees to that. Is it a better rifle? Nope.
Again, you can pull all kinds of factoids out of a book you want, but you are again just showing how much you DON'T know. I highly doubt you've ever even held either rifle let alone shot them...
here is one to throw in the pot and stir some s*** up, how much faster is it to change and M16 magazine? If you don't roll the AK's mag in properly, what happens? Now, wasn't the early versions of the AK using sheet metal and spot welding before the went to milling the lower reciever?
Hmm, I'm going to look that up, Bob. I recall reading ( I think it was a P. Kokalis article) that the original AK's were stamped sheet metal and fell apart when fire full auto during it's initial testing in the mid 40's. Something to do with Soviet spot welding methods and the sheet metal being used at the time. They wanted easier mass production of the rifle. I'll link you over if I can find, do the same if you can. Thanks.
Bob is correct. The original AK-47s were milled out of a single block of steel. While this provides for a very strong reciever, it is also heavy, and difficult, slow and expensive to make. When the Soviets upgraded to the AKM, they reverted to stamped recievers as one of the upgrades.
would that include the original ones that were field tested in the mid 40's? I know the issued ones were milled. They took a 5-6 lbs block of steel and milled it down, hence the vice marks on either side of the reciever. I'll dig around and see what I turn up, I could be wrong and way off.
