Pros and cons. Which is the better weapon?
2006-12-05 13:01:55 · 18 answers · asked by Scott 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The M-4 & M-14 are later weapons and I know that they are vastly improved over the two that I'm comparing. Just wanted your thoughts on the "16" & "47". Thanks.
2006-12-05 23:22:03 · update #1
I have fired both on several occasions during my time in the military. The M-16 is a far better weapon. It is lighter in weight. It handles better. It has a longer range and is much more accurate. The only thing about the AK-47 is that it's a lot louder when it's fired. The M-16 sometimes malfunctions.
2006-12-05 13:07:01 · answer #1 · answered by Yankee Dude 6 · 12⤊ 0⤋
Pro for M-16 better long range than the AK-47. Everything else the AK-47 is better than the M-16. Bigger and better bullets than the M-16. Easier to clean, in fact it almost doesn't have to be cleaned. An11 year boy can fire one. Much larger magazine (I think 30 bullets). It can take 10x more abuse than an M-16. M-16 is basically a piece of plastic while the AK-47 is made of solid wood & steel. The US M-14 is actually a much better weapon than the M-16. The Navy seals use it all the time.
2006-12-05 13:54:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The newer M-16s are reliable and are more accurate than the AK-47. Nevertheless, the AK-47 is very powerfull and is the most reliable firearm in the world. In close quarters, like Baghdad or Fallujah, the accuracy of the M-16 is negated. The Vietcong would wait for enemies to come in extrememly close. Made of steel and wood, the AK-47 is excellent for hand to hand combat.
2006-12-05 13:33:53 · answer #3 · answered by druszka717 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The M16 is much more accurate. The AK-47 is more reliable. The M16 is made on sophisticated machinery and has very tight tolerances for a military weapon. The AK can be made on very simple machinery, utilizing a lot of steel stampings and a few machined parts.
They are both effective weapons. They are both categorized as assault rifles: the both fire selectively (auto and semi-auto) from a large capacity detachable magazine, and utilize an intermediate cartridge.
2006-12-05 13:16:39 · answer #4 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The newer M-16s don't jam as bad as the old ones, but the AK-47 still works after a LOT of abuse.
The M-16 is more accurate.
2006-12-05 13:10:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The m16 is more of an accurate weapon. Think of it like the American special forces. Accurate. Strong blows.
The AK-47 is known for not jamming as often as most rifles though. Think of it like the soviet country it came from. It's quantity while m16 is quality.
2006-12-05 13:36:08 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The m16 is a better weapon for a trained soldier or mercenary overall for its accuracy, and low recoil. The AK47 is very easy to maintain, has a larger cartridge (but is less accurate by a wide margin) and has very few ways of breaking. The AK47 would be a better choice for an untrained soldier or a terrorist/freedom fighter, ect.
2006-12-05 13:12:31 · answer #7 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I belive the AK-47 is better. It's better contructed, can take quite a beating, (In the Vietnam war, VC troops used to bury them in the mud, and when them out, they worked fine), and the sheer availability of them is a plus. Now-a-days the US military uses the M4 Carbine more often than the M-16.
2006-12-05 15:43:02 · answer #8 · answered by luigi.vercotti 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
AK - 47's are probably more popular, but M - 16's are definetley better.
2006-12-05 13:17:35 · answer #9 · answered by Brian W 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
M-16 by far. higher rate of fire. more accurate. lighter. more options (M203, M68 and lots of scopes). Carrying ammo is lighter also. The full auto on the AK burns up way to much heavy ammo. The semi and burst on the M16 are far more effecient.
2006-12-05 13:11:00 · answer #10 · answered by jessica a 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋