2007-03-14 20:16:49 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The AK-47 (and AK-74) is an extremely durable, simple and inexpensive weapon. The 7.62 round is definitely a man-stopper.
Personally I prefer the M-16 and/or M4 because it is infinitely more accurate than the AK.
2007-03-14 20:23:21 · answer #1 · answered by Fearless Leader 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The MP5/10 10mm round (about equal in power of a .45), weighs 6 1/2 lbs and an effective range of 200 meters.
The official AK-47 is no longer being made and has an effective range of 300 meters.
The AK-74, M4 and M-16 both shoot varmint rounds with an effective range about 500 meters (with telescopic sights). They can all hold grenade launchers.
I would say 80% of the use, the MP5/10 would be the better weapon because it's small, light weight and has the best stopping power. This weapon was meant to be put in tight fitting spaces such as a tank, Humvee or stryker; clear rooms and used for guarding areas such as a base. It could probably also probably be used in areas heavy with vegetation where there isn't that much visability.
Maybe a 60% MP5/10 30% M-16A2 and 10% MP40A3 mix would be good.
2007-03-15 09:00:13 · answer #2 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, they are cheap and reliable. And if they are built properly and maintained they are also fairly accurate. The ak-47 fires a WP 7.62 round that is hard hitting and very widely available while the Ak-74 fires a 5.45mm high speed round similar in design to the 5.56 used by NATO forces. Forces may look into the AK-103 replacement as it has many of the AK-47 design advantages with increased technology.
2007-03-14 20:22:30 · answer #3 · answered by cam 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd go with the AK-47. In most infantry conflicts the action takes place less than 100 feet away, especially in Iraq. I don't need the accuracy of a m4 or M16 for that, I need a weapon that won't jam, is rugged and will stop what ever I hit with it.
2007-03-14 21:07:27 · answer #4 · answered by huckleberry1 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I had to choose between the two weapons, I'd go with the AK-47, because ammunition is more widely available, as are magazines and spare parts.
2007-03-14 20:24:34 · answer #5 · answered by C J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I live in a country that 99.7% of the Combatants use the M16 Rifle.no point in using an AK Family of Rifles.
Reliable,Cheap,Powerful?yes
Accurate?Hell No!
Even if most engagements happen less that 100 feet away in a Urban Terrain,I Still prefer Accuracy.One Shot One Kill.I don't plan on wasting ammo.
Weapons are still man made,and can fail in inopportune moments,as a Soldier you must maintain your equiptment to battle standards.
2007-03-14 21:28:34 · answer #6 · answered by HighSpeedLowDrag 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not a bad weapon, but the accuracy lacks a little.
I'll stick with my M4. Thanks
2007-03-14 20:21:41 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋