2007-05-13 04:20:04 · 10 answers · asked by yuda buda b 3 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
the m16 is way better. the ak47 is nothing but hassle after hassle. it is a big problem. i know from experience
2007-05-13 06:08:48 · answer #1 · answered by Sniper 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends. The M16 has better sights and is also lighter than the AK47. The recoil is less, and it is more accurate than an AK47. It also has a higher rate of fire and a longer effective range. AK47s, however, are almost impossible to jam, as exemplified by Vietnam veteran David Hackworth's account: One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK-47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. "Watch this, guys," I said, "and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works." I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds — the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M16.
The AK47 is also much cheaper to produce, and it's bullet will penetrate masonry and timber better than the M16's.
2007-05-13 15:50:38 · answer #2 · answered by John 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The current assult rifle or the U.S. is the m16-a2 the only diffrence from the m16-a1 only being that it has NO full auto capabilities, only 3 round burst. The AK-47 is dirt old, although there are many new variations of it. Most people who have AK's are people who cannot afford m-16's ( terrorists, and third world countrys). That being said the AK is an amazing gun , why do you think it is still being used today? Saying this that standard m-16 shoots a 5.56 (223.in commercial form) mm cartridge, and the AK shoots a 7.62mm (308. in comerical form), so you might say the Ak is more adequate for longer range skirmishes. To answer your question if yo7u are ona buget get an AK they work get dirty, and keep on working. If you have money and have troops worth giving top of the line weapons arm them with M-16s. Personally if i had to choose which one is better I would say the AK-47 BECAUSE it has had relativly no modifications and has been doing dirty work since 1947 that says something. Now that you are armed with knowledge make your own descion
2007-05-13 11:56:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
m16 is the better choice because the 5.56mm round has higher velocity and a flatter trajectory. The ak47 is less accurate at longer distances because of the larger bullet. I do agree with the other person about the ak47 being a great rifle but for hunting purposes the m16 is a better choice.
2016-04-01 09:18:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is true the M-16 Is better than Ak-47 because the M-16 can Penetrate better than the AK-47 the cons for the M-16 is that people say that the M-16 fires small rounds and it gets jammed but the M-16 also has more accuracy than the Ak-47,Plus the M-16 Requires More Engineering to Assemble Than just The Superior AK-47 In which Terrorists Use. for more information go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VRrc2n0NXg
2013-12-07 06:33:51 · answer #5 · answered by Kevin 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hey broken Arrow is incorrect with his info about the AK first the 7.62x39 it shoots is not a 308. ... 308. would be a 7.62x54 but I also when I was younger thought that was what they shot ....... and another thing the m16 firing the 223. (5.56)would be a way better gun at long ranges say 200-600 yards and the Ak would only be good out to 350 yard at most for serious shooting and accuracy I'd go with the m16 for plinking and just saying I have one for a cheap gun I'd go AK .... But ak's go $250 - $550 and m16 go $750-$1100 for civilian semi-automatic. ..... which I'm guessing is what your asking about ..... hey there is a video on youtube.com showing a good comparison between these two rifles check It out.
2007-05-14 04:54:43 · answer #6 · answered by frankcujo89 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all comes down to preference. The M-16 is a bit more "user-friendly" when it comes to charging the handle, reloading, etc. However, as stated previously, the AK was a firearm made to be given to troops with no training. They didn't have to teach them how to clean it, clear it, or shoot with it. They just told them to load it, point it "that way", and fire.
This doesn't even touch on the difference in the rounds.
Here's a good website to check out for much more info:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu10.htm
2007-05-14 02:18:19 · answer #7 · answered by peacefulwarrior 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither. They're different approaches to satisfying certain requirements. YOUR requirements would determine which you'd consider better.
I have one of each and yet prefer an M1 Carbine.
2007-05-13 05:48:10 · answer #8 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
AK-47, tougher than dirt, even if it is just as ugly.
Given my druthers, I'd rather have an M-14 than either.
Doc
2007-05-13 17:00:50 · answer #9 · answered by Doc Hudson 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
#1 choice is the AK47 no if ands or buts..
2007-05-13 10:42:55 · answer #10 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋