M16 or AK47?

2»

Comments

  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited November 2011
    Psychlonic wrote: »
    Is this the new thing to rage over online?

    I really don't keep up with it anymore. There's definitely a need for equipment to not suck ass but some people take this shit WAY too seriously. They are all effective killing weapons and most can be desirable in various situations. If it's in your price range and you are good with it, good enough. Some are blatant junk, like DC-9s and some rounds too rare to consider for most of the time or an SKS or 10/22 riced out with magazines that love to jam, but largely the more important thing is being able to shoot better than the other guy, regardless of what weapons you have. Not to mention that with a little money and/or basic smithing skills, you can improve most of them beyond stock form. Ultimately, arguments like this boil down to preference and it's a waste of time worrying about. If someone likes an AK and you like an M16, who fucking cares?

    Of course, this is recognizing that the original intent was probably not to create a big mess over it, but that's what it has become. Just throwing in my take.

    So was your choice the AK47 or the M16?
  • PsychlonicPsychlonic Regular
    edited November 2011
    So was your choice the AK47 or the M16?

    From above:
    Psychlonic wrote:
    If I got to have one for free out of the two, I'd probably go with the M16 despite being a bitch ass in comparison to clean. Chosen for no overwhelming reasons.

    It could change at any given moment, though. :p Too close to call and it's my opinion that neither are significantly better than the other. Truth be told, the M16 is something I'd want as a sort of emergency survival rifle that stays stowed away in a plane or something because of its light weight but with power anyways and if you were to throw me into battle I'd want something in .308 instead. Just preference.
  • junkiemanjunkieman Semo-Regulars
    edited November 2011
    Psychlonic wrote: »
    M16 despite being a bitch ass in comparison to clean. Chosen for no overwhelming reasons.
    You dont have to clean a good quality AR15 for a while, thousands of rounds. Even then, its not a bitch, just pull out the BCG and wipe it down. If you spray some lube in your BCG you can go even more thousands without cleaning.

    You believe the 9mm vs 45 debate is stupid, as do I. When it comes to guns, shot placement is all that matters, not a small difference in bullet diameter. A .22 will kill someone just as dead, just as fast as a .45 if you score a direct CNS hit. I feel like ammo capacity / carry / follow-up shot ability are the most important factors, for those reasons 9mm wins the debate against .45, and 5.56 wins over 7.62x39 (or even .308) because you can have quicker follow up shots and carry almost twice as much ammo for an equivalent weight in other calibers. With that being said, all of the aforementioned calibers work just fine.
    Psychlonic wrote: »
    if you were to throw me into battle I'd want something in .308 instead. Just preference.

    Significant recoil, slower follow up shots, half the ammo. I'd take anything in 7.62x39 over a .308 if I were "in battle".

    I like AKs, I also like ARs. I'm just here because I feel like a bunch of know-nothing no-guns give the AR15 / M16/ M4 a bad rap.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited November 2011
    Shot placement is more important to a 9 or a .22 than it is to a .45.
  • juggjugg Regular
    edited November 2011
    I understand what junkieman is saying, but I will always bank on me not hitting what i'm shooting at. Especially if its under duress. If you have professional training or allot of experience then I guess it doesn't matter what you shoot because you have been trained to cope with stressful situations. All in all I guess it boils down to your own personal capabilities.
  • SpinsterSpinster Regular
    edited November 2011
    I use to do target shooting, with a .22

    I could reliable hit a dot the size of the rubber end of a pencil. I dont do it anymore but I can still head shot rabbits standing at significant range with a silenced .22

    so I could say my killing ability with any of the guns meantioned would be fair. before I read this thread I would have said the AK47 is a superior weapon, but now I see now how the M16 is the weapon of choice.

    Question, yes the Ak has a bigger projectile therefore having a bigger recoil, but wouldnt the M16 higher rate of fire kinda even out the difference between the two guns?
  • PsychlonicPsychlonic Regular
    edited November 2011
    junkieman wrote: »
    Significant recoil, slower follow up shots, half the ammo. I'd take anything in 7.62x39 over a .308 if I were "in battle".

    Like I said, it's preference. I've spent most of my life hunting and can use the extra range afforded to me and would do so gladly at the expense of weight and less ammo. I agree with what you're saying, but it wouldn't stop me from picking up the .308. On the other hand, I could go on some sort of tirade like you are about how a quality .308 really doesn't produce that bad of recoil and you're clearly talking out of your ass just like you're accusing others of doing, but that's another topic.

    And having served in the Army and spending plenty of time cleaning the M16, I have a pretty good grasp of how annoying it can be to clean. It's not "hard" per se, but it's not as easy as cleaning an AK that has such large, simple parts it cleans up in no time flat with no nooks or crannies to get into. A "quality" AR is one thing, but the M16 is a distinct designated rifle. If we want to take that route, we can say that Saigas are much better than regular AK-47s or that the AK-74 is practically the same thing with superior ballistics and frankly perfectly on par with the M16 in all performance areas. Which is another reason this argument gets stupid fast. You are not "right", there is no right argument to be made here.
  • junkiemanjunkieman Semo-Regulars
    edited November 2011
    jugg wrote: »
    I understand what junkieman is saying, but I will always bank on me not hitting what i'm shooting at. Especially if its under duress.
    I agree, which is why I think more ammo/capacity is more important.

    Spinster wrote: »
    Question, yes the Ak has a bigger projectile therefore having a bigger recoil, but wouldnt the M16 higher rate of fire kinda even out the difference between the two guns?

    Are you 12? What exactly are you asking, here? Real life isn't call of duty with status bars to compare different weapons attributes. Rate of automatic fire (with select-fire weapons) really only matters when it comes down to supression. Most individuals equipped with a rifle or carbine (who know what they're doing) would engage targets with semi-automatic fire or short bursts. People who do not know what they're doing (see: Somalia, early Iraq insurgency) tend to spray bullets all over the place and hope that "the will of Allah will guide them to the infidels".

    If we're talking about supression, I think something chambered in 7.62x39 would be superior over 5.56, as it has better cover penetrating abilities. Of course, something chambered in any large caliber with good penetration would also suffice, to an extent where one could maintain fairly accurate supression. Supression isn't meant to rip through cover to kill people, but when it does its a bonus.
    Psychlonic wrote: »
    Like I said, it's preference... tirade... high quality .308 gun = low recoil, etc...
    So hostile.
    Yeah, you said it was a preference, therefore there is no right or wrong answer, therefore there cannot be an argument. I cited reasons why my preference would be different. I did not consider longer range engagements as you seem to be doing. I'm not that great of a shot anyway, I'm like 2 MOA at best with irons at 100m (truth on the internet? WTF?) Recoil isn't that much of a factor on longer range shots anyway, as rate of fire doens't matter too much. I was thinking < 100 yard engagements (its an AR vs AK thread).

    And having served in the Army and spending plenty of time cleaning the M16, I have a pretty good grasp of how annoying it can be to clean. It's not "hard" per se...good quality AR... etc.

    My appologies, when I'm on the internet and I hear someone mention an AR pattern rifle and "cleaning" and "bitch" in the same sentence, I immediately assume they have no experience relating to reliability or how clean one of those rifles must be to function. Some lower quality ARs do not function well when dirty, but its because they're shit-tier, just like some new WASRs fire 8 MOA. That is where my "quality AR" reference was coming from.

    Cleaning one of those would be a TOTAL bitch if you had to do it to white glove standards, fortunately they dont actually need to be that clean to work.

    In the end, all that matters is how well you can put lead on target with your weapon of choice and whether or not that weapon of choice can help you fulfill whatever roll you are trying to fill.

    AR vs AK vs .45 vs 9mm vs 5.56 vs 7.62x39 vs .308 vs x54r is for video games, not real life.
  • PsychlonicPsychlonic Regular
    edited November 2011
    Yeah I guess that did come across as a little hostile, that wasn't really the intention and I apologize, it's good that someone is trying to balance out the mythical AK-47 that can shoot even after having cemented poured into the barrel and receiver and all that good stuff, but hey some of us have experience with both platforms that's all.
  • 5.56 SS1095.56 SS109 Regular
    edited December 2011
    jugg wrote: »
    Do you mean .45 vs .357?

    Does it matter?

    There is no significant difference between 9x19 and .357 Magnum.

    Bullet diameter is practically the same and bullet weight is the same. The .357 Magnum does have, maybe, 150 feet-per-second over the 9x19 but it really doesn't matter to anyone except the "stopping power" and "energy dump" bozos.

    The only two handgun rounds (for personal defense) worth considering are .45 and 9x19. The .45 only factors in because some people just insist on living in the past and carrying 1911s. Otherwise the ballistic performance between the two rounds is close enough to be called identical.
  • DisguisedRebelDisguisedRebel Semo-Regulars
    edited December 2011
    m-16 all the way


    and as for this:
    The only two handgun rounds (for personal defense) worth considering are .45 and 9x19. The .45 only factors in because some people just insist on living in the past and carrying 1911s. Otherwise the ballistic performance between the two rounds is close enough to be called identical.

    Im gonna have to disagree with you on that one. I think any handgun at all is worth considering for defense. Any time you shoot someone, even with a .22, its gonna stop them. I think more of accuracy and ease of maintaing accuracy when i think of this. What caliber am i going to be able to squeeze off alot of rounds and maintain accuracy with easily? Believe it or not, i prefer a .22 as a carry weapon (though being a felon im not supposed to carry a weapon)

    I agree it doesnt have as much "stopping" power per bullet, but you pop off 5 rounds into someone real quick there done.

    Now for the person who's comfortable enough with there accuracy then yeah sure go for the larger calibers. I just feel like if i was put in a high stress, high adrenaline situation, id want the one that was easier for me to be accurate with, ya know
  • fagfag Regular
    edited December 2011
    1. The AR is easier to control. Faster to switch the safety off, faster follow up shots, lighter weight, slightly simpler mag change.

    2. The AR has a much softer report. Try firing an AK from indoors. You will feel the concussion squishing your eyeballs. The AR, not so much.

    3. The AR is not that prissy. Just because you can't pop off the cover and spray it out with WD-40 once very five years to keep it working doesn't make it temperamental.

    4. You can easily mount a scope or other optic on an AR, and most come standard with a mount. Yes there are scope systems for ak, but they just sort of suck by comparison.

    The AK is fine for what it is. But if you are a first-world citizen that can afford the initial investment of an extra few hundred dollars, then fucking go for the AR.
Sign In or Register to comment.