M16 or AK? - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion > AK & SKS Discussion > M16 or AK?

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2008, 12:04 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slowryde45 View Post
You can almost have both....buy an AK in .223

No, the .223 doesn't have the same "knock-down power of the 7.62x39, but that was not in the design parameters of that round. We were looking for something that was "lighter", hence more load carrying capacity (rounds) for the infantry man carrying that weapon.

As for penetration, the theory was that the round would penetrate then bounce around in the body, causing possibly fatal wounds, or enough of one to incapacitate that person, causing possibly the loss of service of a few of his comrades as they tended to their wounded or carried them out. This was all in the original theory, not always practiced in the field, as they often left their wounded behind if need be.

The AK is by far the most reliable design in a combat weapon and has been since the 1940's. No, it isn't as accurate as an AR can be, but it wasn't designed for that. It was designed to deliver lead, and does so very well. In the hands of someone that is experienced with it, and within the range it was intended to be used at, it is as lethal as anything out there. The AK's in 5.45x39 can be as light as alot of AR's, specially with poly stocks on them.

The AR, again, is more accurate, requires more maintenance, but is far more FLEXIBLE. You can easily modify an AR to fit most needs. Stocks and pistol grips, rail systems, trigger groups, etc. are easily changed, allowing you to add accessories like optics, lasers, vertical grips, flare launchers, etc. You can even buy or assemble different uppers that can be swapped back and forth on one lower receiver to fit the need again, whether it be Tactical and short for convenience, or a long range/target/varmint upper for reaching out and touching something. This is something that is not easily done on any AK.

There are many other differences, pros/cons, it's all in what fits your needs best.
I have both an ar15 and a ak47 in .223
__________________

IN A WORLD OF COMPROMISE SOME DON'T H&K
GOD BLESS THE SECOND AMENDMENT :D :D
GOD BLESS THE NRA :D :D
NRA ENDOWMENT LIFE MEMBER
VOTE PRO GUN ONLY
SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

h&k bigdaddydieseldan is offline  
 
Old 05-17-2008, 12:29 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 630
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default M16 Vs Ak

Hello all


Ron L here = SERESURPLUS


While my own preference for the AK system is mostly known here, I do want to dispell a few "Mis-statements" made here! Yes, the AK is not near as accurat as the AR/M-16 Family! Neither of these two are near the weapon that the Galil is? Plus, as far as these "Shots out to 500 yards", what do you really think .223 is going to do at that range? If your talking punching paper, thats fine? If your talking about Killing ability, your out of your mind! I like the AK, as it's robust, ealy to use, never really breaks, and I don't see a lot of that in the M-16 Family! Hell, you lose a cotter pin, your upper is out of action? LOL

I know we all take preference to the weapons we have used and prefer, but I just don't see the smaller edge of accuarcy of the M-16 as that big of an edge over the AK? Show me 5 guiys here that shoot over 300 years and I will have to see that to believe it? Plus, as I have said, 223 just doesn't have the legs out to 500 yards, no matter how you want it to?



RON L

__________________
RONSERESURPLUS is offline  
 
Old 05-24-2008, 08:22 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 143
Default

i'm not a fan of the standard AK's ergonomics. to take the weapon off safe and fire your firing hand has to practically leave the grip. At least the galil solves this problem. today, now more than ever there is a wide variety of ammuition choices available for 5.56mm NATO. SOCOM in afghanistan have successfully used 77 grain sierra match kings with outstanding terminal ballistics. hornady TAP ammo is also getting good feedback from various LE usersd. I think the AR is a more versitile platform suited for the 21st century asymetric battle field. In order to convert an AK to mount accessories costs a little bit of money. Krebs seems to have done a good job. if I were picking up contracting work in the middle east with poor logistical support, i might want to go with a Krebs AK as opposed to an AR.

__________________
coltm4 is offline  
 
Old 06-06-2008, 05:48 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
glockfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 157
Default

Heres the deal:

The Ak bolt is like putting your finger in a a doorway, there is alot of room to move around and thus not be fouled up, but, you sacrifice some accuracy with that issue.

The M16 bolt is like putting a door in the doorway, fits perfectly, but there is no room for any gunk.

__________________

MESA TACTICAL REVIEW
glockfire is offline  
 
Old 02-04-2009, 07:22 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13
Default

AK=Reliable, Powerful
AR=Accurate, Less Powerful

__________________
Greg45 is offline  
 
Old 06-15-2009, 10:04 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TexasCHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16
Default

I have to agree, the AK is going to be more reliable. But for accuracy, I certainly have to give that to the AR.

__________________

Texas Concealed Handgun Classes for the Southeast Texas area.
Texas CHL License

TexasCHL is offline  
 
Old 06-15-2009, 01:32 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Longmont
Posts: 426
Default

M16 or AK :

Most of what posted should help you make a decision.

Just add $ 10,000 + for either one and you are all set

M 16 is a machinegin..so I guess you are also considering a Pre-86 transferrable AK ?

Should be able to find nice ones in $ 13-14,000 range.

__________________
Dgunsmith is offline  
 
Old 06-18-2009, 03:44 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Steviepc7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch View Post

Forty years and this is the best our military establishment can do?
I guess I dont quite understand this statement..... the m16/m4 is one of the best assualt rifles ever made.
__________________
USAF Spec Ops...............Hurlburt Field Florida

Steyr M9-A1

Walther P99 .40

GP1975 AK-47

DPMS Panther AR-15
Steviepc7 is offline  
 
Old 07-01-2009, 09:41 AM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
AKCoastie89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 21
Default

I own variants of both. The AK will put up with more abuse and is more comfortable to operate, but it's also less accurate and more difficult to reload. The M16/AR15 is much more accurate but as someone mentioned before the sights can limit your field of vision. Both of mine are chambered in 5.56 NATO so I don't bother with the 5.56 vs. 7.62x39 debate. As far as weight, my AK with synthetic furniture is actually much lighter than my AR (which does have a full metal rail system.) AK rifles also have a better potential for CQB weapons because they can take a folding stock (M16 rifles have a buffer spring that extends into the stock, making a folding stock impossible.)
Essentially what it comes down to is the AK is a better battle rifle but the M16 is more suited for law enforcement applications.

__________________
AKCoastie89 is offline  
 
Old 07-01-2009, 11:46 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SGT-MILLER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,354
Liked 6 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
The M16/AR15 is much more accurate but as someone mentioned before the sights can limit your field of vision.
Keep both eyes open when looking down the M-16/AR-15 peep sights.

Quote:
Essentially what it comes down to is the AK is a better battle rifle but the M16 is more suited for law enforcement applications.
The AK has been performing awful as a battle rifle. The M-16 platform has been kicking the tar out of the AK design in Iraq and Afganistan in both traditional long range engagements, and close range urban engagements.

Quote:
AK rifles also have a better potential for CQB weapons because they can take a folding stock (M16 rifles have a buffer spring that extends into the stock, making a folding stock impossible.)
Excessive muzzle blast and higher recoil can hinder the AK in extreme CQB applications. The folding stock is a non-issue for the AR since you can have a collapsable stock that will shorten up the weapon for CQB, or lengthen it out for good long range work. Plus, the fact that the M-4 is shorter than an AK is a great asset for CQB.

This is a debate that will rage until the end of the internet.
__________________
"TRAIN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE, NOT WITH WHAT YOU WISH YOU HAVE."
SGT-MILLER is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes