OK Pop Quiz...AK-47 OR M-16...and why?

June 26 2010 | US Navy Vet

[crghill]

Sig 556 hands down.

[TomasUSMC]

7.62

[AZ .44 MAG]

Ping to link at 25.

[jdege]

I never really liked the M16A1. It didn’t feel right, it wasn’t accurate at distance, and I never had one that was really reliable.

The M16A2, on the other hand, was a whole different world.

The AK47, OTOH, is a piece of shit. Yes, the design is reliable, but both range and accuracy suck. At the ranges at which an AK works, an SMG would do just as well.

I want accuracy and reliability. And the M16A2 and M16A3 gives that. (I’ve never used an M4, but it has the feel of a bad compromise. I’ve heard complaints of low penetration and lack of accuracy. You just can’t stabilize a 5.56mm in a barrel that short. Again, I’d rather have an SMG.

Seems to me that a squad would be better served to have some carrying 7.62mm battle rifles and some carrying .45ACP SMGs than having everyone carrying M-4s.

[ought-six]

“Depends on use. Close up, AK. Need some distance, M-16.”

I agree with yoju. For close quarter use (i.e., within 100 yards) I’d go with the AK. For longer range and accuracy, give me the M-16. Howaever, if I had a choice of any battle rifle I would take the M-14, hands down.

[Still Thinking]

Not Stoner’s fault. He did the AR-10 before he did the M-16.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

There should be a comparison between the M-16 vs AK-74

[DemforBush]

I want one of these:

Sure, they never quite worked the bugs out...but its a really cool looking rifle!

[bolobaby]

My SIg Sauer 5.56 is awesome. Accuracy of the M16 with a gas piston system to boot.

[ExSoldier]

M16 plain and simple. Yes the AK is awesome for it's reliability yada yada yada but my reason for never owning one (not that I wouldn't pick one up in the middle of a gunfight, in a heartbeat) is simple and personal. They've been responsible in enemy hands, for the deaths of too many of my friends. It's not the weapon, it's the USER, I know that. But simply put, they bring back too many painful memories. It's just tooooo personal.

[meyer]

Between the two, my choice...

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Depends. Do you want to kill whatever it is you are shooting at, or merely annoy it a little?

[Salgak]

An AK isn't bad. . .but if you want TOUGH, there is but one choice. The Mosin-Nagant.

Own a Soviet Man-Cannon, and you'll know what TOUGH means. Plus, both it, and it's ammo, are dirt-cheap. . .

[mad_as_he$$]

Mini-14

[MileHi]

Love my AR

[Lurker]

Mini-14

The Mini is a decent choice. It's Mrs. L's preferred platform. And these days one has almost as many choices to customize it as an AR. The only problem is that skinny barrel. It almost always ends up stringing shots after a long course of fire. There's no way to cool it short of dunking it in a pond.

But it is based on the Garand action, and that makes it reliable. A real bonus is that the Mini will eat almost any type of ammo you can stuff into it.

Mrs L put one of those Bushnell Red Dots on top of hers. She can hit minute of bad guy with the first round out to 200 yards any day of the week. God I love that woman...

[MileHi]

I'm too old.

Me too. And I have seen what 7.62x39 WILL punch through.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I like the AR-15, too because of all the caliber uppers you can get for it. If you want, you can get .223/5.56, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .50 Beowulf, .458 SOCOM, .30 Whisper (I like this one) and probably a half dozen other calibers, all by swapping out the upper receiver in about 20 seconds.

[mad_as_he$$]

There are upsized barrels available but expensive. I have had excellent result with them by making sure the gas collector is not clamped too loose or to tight. Ruger has a spec for how much it clamps. Can't remember right now but I found it on a forum - Ar-15.com I think.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And don’t forget pistol calibers, too!