I used to hate the Kalashnikov series of rifles until I started firing them downrange.
I think it's a really reliable weapon, but if so many people believe it's better than the M16, then how come we are basically THE world power and we ARE NOT using the AK? And the people that we have dominated in the middle east are using the AK? I must be missing something. Maybe it's a political thing, but that just tells me that there's a damn good reason we are using the M-16. And, contrary to popular belief, models of the M-4 have been developed that need virtually no cleaning and never jam, At least that's what one of my SWAT magazines stated in one of their issues. So wich one is truly better?
2007-04-13 14:35:10 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
It depends on the use of the weapon I have been trained on and fired both weapons extensively, I like the AK for reliability in wet muddy terrain, low maintenance, fairly accurate, powerful round.
But, If I am in a fighting position with a M16A2, the AK user would have to come 120 meters into my field of fire to kill me. I am not lazy, like cleaning my weapons, Very accurate, I'll stick with the M16.
So Sayeth the Impaler!
2007-04-13 14:43:07 · answer #1 · answered by impalersca 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ak-47
2007-04-13 21:38:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The AK is cheaper and has been a much easier weapon to maintain in the field. The munitions are also cheaper for it than the M16. The earlier problems of the M16 may have been engineered out of it but history is a hard thing to overcome unless you are a real liberal.
2007-04-13 21:49:26 · answer #3 · answered by old codger 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my humble opinion, AKs are better for sniper or short-burst fire, while m16 is more a short-burst/automatic style weapon. This is because the AK has such a whip that accuracy is greatly reduced as you continue shooting, while with an M16, 3-4 shots can easily be leveled with considerable accuract in comparison to the 1-2 with an AK, despite the increased calibur in bullet with the AK.
2007-04-13 21:40:52 · answer #4 · answered by Michael R 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As far as reliability the M-16 can't hold a candle to the AK-47.Besides that, the 7.62mmx39 round is far superior to the .223 Remington.
2007-04-14 07:59:14 · answer #5 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no "better". Each has advantages. For accuracy, it's the M16. For effective range, it's the M16. For simplicity and firing when dirty, it's the AK. For interchangeablity of ammo, it's the AK.
It just depends.
2007-04-13 21:39:07 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I own an AK and use the M-4 at work. I think it boils down to preference.
The M-4 is lighter and more accurate......
The AK is more reliable and packs a punch.....
Hard to say.....it is kind of like a father choosing a favorite son.......
I like the AK, but my life relies on the M-4...
2007-04-13 21:59:53 · answer #7 · answered by Zuper Z 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It had to do with who got the contracts before the vietnam war when they developed the AK-47
2007-04-13 21:41:26 · answer #8 · answered by Theodore Sebastian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked firing the M-16 better. The most clever thing about the AK47 was that its ammo is just slightly larger than the M16 meaning it can fire M16 ammo but the M16 can't fire AK47 ammo.
2007-04-13 21:41:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the m-16 is an all round better weapon, especially in terms of reliability.
2007-04-13 21:38:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋