You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - > Long Guns > Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion > AK & SKS Discussion >

M16 or AK?

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2009, 02:13 PM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
RL357Mag's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Albany,New York
Posts: 3,251
Liked 7 Times on 7 Posts


Originally Posted by 753X0 View Post
When I was active duty, I never once saw a soldier from any branch have to drop his m-16/m-4 in order to keep firing.You kept your rifle spic and span, and if you didn't you would be reprimanded. This may have been something that happened during 'Nam. then turned into myth.
When I saw an AK fired, it was generally from the hip. Probably because they have basically pistol sights on top of that rifle, trying to make an quick accurate shot would be almost impossible.
As for those of you that don't think a 5.56 will kill, you've obviously never seen someone take a couple to the center of mass, they don't go far, usually about 3 ft, straight down
When I was hit, it was by an RPG, not a sheet steel stamped out piece of crap AK.
That's me on the bottom left in the pic, my avatar.
He got me with an RPG, I got him with a Hellfire missile. He didn't do so well.
+10 753XO - this debate is generally conducted by people with no service experience and no firearms knowledge...
Guns Have Only Two Enemies-Rust and Politicians
"The United States Constitution (c) 1791 - All Rights Reserved"
If Guns Kill, Do Pencils Mis-spell Words?
Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body - USMC
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum"
RL357Mag is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 05:05 AM   #42
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
diggsbakes's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pueblo,Colorado
Posts: 1,680
Liked 11 Times on 6 Posts


It is a matter of opinion. I shoot and own both. The AR is obviously more accurate, fast and deadly. The AK is more reliable and when chambered in the classic 7.62 x 39 will go through things (i.e. CMU walls, brick dwellings, car doors). The smaller bullet will also tend to drift when shooting through brush. I love shooting both of these guns... alot! They are so different, but I don't know if I would say apples and oranges.

As far as shooting the AK from the hip??? Nothing I would do. My bottom line AK a WASR 10/63 took only minimal elevation adjustment to zero in at 50 yards. At 100 yards it was still shooting good (all 20 per group hit with in an 8" diameter target, some right on mark, with no sight adjustment. At 200 yards elevation adjustment was necessary, but still allowed consistent hits with computer pop ups. 300 yards with pop ups was a bit tricky as the average 7.62 trajectory drops over 24" at that distance. I did still get a few hits.

The AK is no long range rifle, but anyone shooting it form the hip is poorly trained as it can be a much more effective weapon than that. Sight your AK in and you will be good to go for at least 100 yards with no elevation adjustment. AKs chambered in 5.45 X 39 deliver even better accuracy and wounding, but with less penetration.

Have fun with both of these weapons. They are both good for what they were made for.
diggsbakes is offline  
Old 09-19-2009, 05:49 PM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: City
Posts: 120

753X0 makes a real point. Any good soldier keeps his weapon clean and his gear tidy at all times.

I think the accuracy issue is way overblown. I can't ever remember a firefight at 600 meters. At that range you're shooting at vehicles. Most action takes place at 200 meters or less, and if you can't hit that with an AK, probably shouldn't be fighting anybody. 100 meters is football field length, and 500 meters is over a quarter mile away. You can't control when someone is going to bend over, the wind or the lighting. Even at 100 meters you should be going for torso shots, and it hurts BAD no matter what gets you. I've had no problem with an AK in close quarters, or with an M16 jamming up. I can hit what I want with my AKM at 450 meters. 440 yards is a quarter mile away. I don't call that inaccurate. I chose an AK because I am no longer part of a fire team, and if there is anything like stumbling across drug cartels in the boonies, gang activity around my house, or if I have to be able to maneuver on my own without a support system, it will suppress, knock down and allow me time to move. It can go for a few fights without cleaning if necessary, and god forbid, if the gov't ever wants to move against the people, the first thing they will do is restrict NATO rounds. I live close to the border and can get AK parts and ammo out of Mexico if I have to.

The AK is a far superior weapon to the AR when it comes to hunting sizeable game. Accuracy is a non-issue again, who gets to take a 600 meter shot at a deer? They live in the woods. A good hunter stalks his prey and should easily have a 50 meter shot. Javelina are really mean, with super hard heads, an AR has problems bringing them down in a charge. An AK will knock them back on their ass. Without a nearly perfect shot placement, an AR is not bringing down an elk or a bear.

Just my two bits. It's all preference, two different rifles designed for two different things. I prefer the transfer of kinetic energy to a target. This debate is the same thing as 9mm or .45, two different philosophies. Punch it full of holes or knock it down.
Route 66 Rambler is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes