should the mililtary swap out the M16 for AK.?

Question

if not AK,what?do think it would halp out the war?

Answer 1

The AK 47 is stamped metal junk. A properly maintained M16 is a very superior weapon. It needs to be cleaned more. That is a discipline issue, not a fault of the weapon system.

Answer 2

Unfortunantly a few things must be kept in mind when talking about military weapons. They are to be simple accurate and low maintenance.
Myself I would NEVER weild a m16 in any type of situation i needed to put someone down in 1 shot. Sorry the gun can kill but the stopping power is NOT there.
However for military general purpose it is a great gun. It is accurate very accurate for what it is in fact. It has very little kick due to that spring inside it makeing it much more managable for even more wide variety of people to use. You can shoot it without really even braceing it. It is a relitivly simple gun to dismantle break down and do basic repairs to.

Mind you a AK is very similar and so is a AR47 and a few other rifles i would weild before i would choose a m16 but all of them have a good kick that would shock anyone that is used to shooting a m16 or not used to shooting at all. For the role that the m16 plays in the military it does a good job. However i do easily see a time when it will need to be replaced. Such as when enemy troops begin wearing body armor as a norm. m16's will not have the punch to effect someone wearing any hard type body armor. Thankfully the military has a wide varity of weapons and there is allready research in progress for weapons of the future (i love discovery channel) and i am amazed with what they want troops to carry. Right now tho even tho the m16 is the common military weapon people know about there is a lot of other weapons that are deployed and some of them are capable of punching through tank armor with a simple rifle round.

Answer 3

Whoever said Mp5 and P90 don't realize that those weapons are SMG's, and not Assault Rifles and are useless at 100+yards? Lol, terrible weapons.

The Army should switch out for the the Hechler and Koch 416 rifle. Probably the most advanced Assault Rifle in the entire world. The XM8 would also be a nice weapons system for soldiers. The AK-47 is not the answer, it's already proven our current M16 and M4 Carbines are far superior to the AK-47's, they are really inaccurate. They do hit harder, and have bigger ammo than our M16's 5.56mm ammunition. Our rifles use rat ammunication, but at it's current velocity, it doesn't matter it still has stopping power.

H&K 416
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK416

The XM8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8_rifle

Or Maybe the FN-SCAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

Answer 4

Whoever said the M-16 has more knockdown power is either lying or ignorant. Simple physics: bigger round at slower speed knocks down target. Smaller round at faster speed passes through target. You don't have to be a rifle expert to know that.

The M-16 family is neither as good as it's proponants claim nor as bad as it's detractors sneer. There is a lot of politics involved. The HK XM-8 was being tested, but while it had some good features, none of that mattered because Rummy and Congress didn't want a rifle made in a country that didn't support the invasion of Iraq. Was it a better rifle? Maybe not, but it never had a fair chance. I suspect the same is true of many of the weapons suggested above.

Answer 5

no way. Although the ak can take alot more abuse than an m-16, it is way too inaccurate especially at long ranges. The m-16 is slowly being fased out, most units have already switched to the m-4 which I find a good weapon. The only problem I have with it is the constant redundancy of cleaning it to keep the lower reciever and bore clear of sand and carbon to keep it from jamming. Other than that its a good weapon. There is alot of controversy over the 5.56mm round that the m-16 and m-4 use, and its stopping power. Personally I see that as an ammo problem rather than a problem with the gun itself. Since the use of hollow pointed rounds is prohibeted we're kinda stuck with what we have. We won't be rid of m-16's or m-4's for a long time to come.

Answer 6

I have shot the M16 for 14 years, and I've never found a fault with it. I've fired 25 year old M16s that were so worn the upper and lower reciever had a gap you could slide a dime in, and I still qualified with it. I doubt you could say the same thing about an AK. The low tolerances that allow the weapon to fire when fouled also kills the weapon's lifespan.

Personally I don't care if we go to another weapon or not, as long as we adopt a weapon made in the U.S. If we, for instance, go with a HK, and then happen to go to war against Germany some time in the future, then we may find our source of weapons turned against us. Plus, it puts money into American pockets.

Answer 7

No we need to upgrade to the new m4 carbine. It is like the current m4 but it dose not use gas it uses a piston and there is no carbon build up and the weapon will work properly more often. And the only thing that will help in this sudo war is to end it. The Ak will not jam as much but the m16 and m4 are more accurate.

Answer 8

You have to remember the war we are in, it would be much better to have a weapon like a M4, or M727 which is basically an M4 with a carry handle. The M16 and AK are much to long to be as effective in close quarters. But... it all depends on where your fighting. I wouldn't make the trade... like I would have a choice. :)

Answer 9

No, its inferior in ALOT of real time combat uses. The only countries in the world who use the AK cannot afford the m16 (Quoting history channel)

Answer 10

I've always thought that might be a good idea. I keep hearing about how rugged and reliable the AK is. But I don't really know enough to have an informed opinion.