Question For Gun Buffs?

[Spoonman]

M-16 or AK-47. Which do you prefer. And why?

I've never handled either of them but based on what I've read and heard from experienced shooters I have my preference and I'd like to compare my thoughts.

I'd take the M-16 but if I was going to go for a kalashnikov i'd go for the AK 74 over the 47

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you considering purchasing one; or are you attempting to elicit a justification for why the U.S. military fields what you seem to believe is an inferior weapon?

I'm not seeking to justify anything. But inasmuch as government spending has arisen as a primary factor in the present conflict between Republicans and Obama, it occurs to me that it's time to start looking closely at military expenditures which represent a major part of the Budget. Because I understand the M-16 costs three times as much as the AK-47.

In thinking about this I'm recalling things I've read, heard, and watched on tv about the M-16 and the AK-47. Because I have no experience with either weapon I'm asking for opinions from those who know better than I. And while I'm at it I might as well ask what kind of weapon you Brits field (it looks like an FN/FAL to me), how much it costs, and what you think of it.

Although I never was in combat I did spend four years in the Marine Corps, which included quite a bit of time on field maneuvers and in training exercises, so I have some awareness of what a weapon can be exposed to in terms of rain, mud, grit, and sand. The standard weapon at that time was the M-1 Garand, which is a supremely reliable combat weapon, as well as being deadly accurate and extremely powerful. It is known to take a beating and to function reliably under the worst conditions.

When the M-14, another highly reliable and efficient combat rifle was replaced by the Stoner M-16, at considerable expense, the first distribution was defective. Those weapons, which were issued to our troops in Vietnam, jammed, causing a number (unknown to me) of deaths -- which is a goddam shame!

Although the cause of that problem was determined and corrected I am led to believe the M-16 remains relatively prone to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. If that is true then the weapon cannot be considered reliable for combat deployment. And in my opinion reliability is a far more important concern than is long-range accuracy in a battlefield weapon. I can live with missing a 200 yard shot -- but I can't live if my weapon won't fire when I need it to most.

So what I'd like to elicit here are comments from those who have experience with either or both of the subject weapons.

The M-16 is a capable successful weapon on its own merits. It neither jams nor malfunctions in the manner you have been lead to believe. One does not need to meticulously clean it to keep it functioning. One does need to clean the gas exchange occasional to prevent a misfire but that is neither critical nor threatening in a combat situation.

Once again if you plan to buy an AK-47 do NOT buy the Chinese ones, they are useless for accuracy. The AK-47 was not built for accuracy, it was built to be a cheap fast effective bullet sprayer. The European models are ok with accuracy out to about 300 yards. The Chinese ones are a waste of time if one wants to hit what they aimed at. Once again at 25 yards with the sights adjust as far as they wold adjust I was hitting about 6 inches OFF the target.

As for civilian cost you are going to find both weapons are expensive due to current demands and availability.

There is one other plus to an AK-47, it is the bigger round so has more brute stopping power. Of course that means weight wise it weighs more and the ammo weighs more.

 

[Spoonman]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

AK 47's are pretty accurate at close range. 100 to 200 yards out.
You can get a AK variant in 223 that is pretty accurate even further out.

As mentioned, I've never handled either weapon. But I've never like the M-16. I don't like the way it looks and everything I've read, heard, and seen in tv documentaries about it confirms my dislike -- especially its comparatively delicate nature and tendency to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. That is a big turn-off where a battlefield weapon is concerned.

On the other hand I think the AK-47 is a good-looking piece. And everything I've read and heard about it says it's every bit as good as it looks and then some. What concerns me is the cost factor. I understand the M-16 costs almost three times as much as the AK to produce, yet it falls far short of the AK on the battlefield in terms of simple reliability -- which is by far the most important consideration under typical field conditions.

While the bloated military budget is always a concern the comparison of the M-16 vs the AK-47 seems a far more significant issue today than ever before. Not only does the much greater cost of the M-16 seem smugly wasteful, I'm a little pissed off at the fact that a lot of GIs lost their lives because of the inferior performance of early versions of the M-16.

Although the design of the M-16 has been improved my understanding is the weapon still is not as reliable as the AK, an extremely important consideration which is arrogantly ignored by the Pentagon.

I will appreciate knowing what others think of this.

just don't mix brass and steel when you shoot

 

[PoliticalChic]

M-16 or AK-47. Which do you prefer. And why?

I've never handled either of them but based on what I've read and heard from experienced shooters I have my preference and I'd like to compare my thoughts.

For a gun buff, I usually use the make-up cotton puffs.....you should see the finish!!

 

[tjvh]

Are you considering purchasing one; or are you attempting to elicit a justification for why the U.S. military fields what you seem to believe is an inferior weapon?

I'm not seeking to justify anything. But inasmuch as government spending has arisen as a primary factor in the present conflict between Republicans and Obama, it occurs to me that it's time to start looking closely at military expenditures which represent a major part of the Budget. Because I understand the M-16 costs three times as much as the AK-47.

In thinking about this I'm recalling things I've read, heard, and watched on tv about the M-16 and the AK-47. Because I have no experience with either weapon I'm asking for opinions from those who know better than I. And while I'm at it I might as well ask what kind of weapon you Brits field (it looks like an FN/FAL to me), how much it costs, and what you think of it.

Although I never was in combat I did spend four years in the Marine Corps, which included quite a bit of time on field maneuvers and in training exercises, so I have some awareness of what a weapon can be exposed to in terms of rain, mud, grit, and sand. The standard weapon at that time was the M-1 Garand, which is a supremely reliable combat weapon, as well as being deadly accurate and extremely powerful. It is known to take a beating and to function reliably under the worst conditions.

When the M-14, another highly reliable and efficient combat rifle was replaced by the Stoner M-16, at considerable expense, the first distribution was defective. Those weapons, which were issued to our troops in Vietnam, jammed, causing a number (unknown to me) of deaths -- which is a goddam shame!

Although the cause of that problem was determined and corrected I am led to believe the M-16 remains relatively prone to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. If that is true then the weapon cannot be considered reliable for combat deployment. And in my opinion reliability is a far more important concern than is long-range accuracy in a battlefield weapon. I can live with missing a 200 yard shot -- but I can't live if my weapon won't fire when I need it to most.

So what I'd like to elicit here are comments from those who have experience with either or both of the subject weapons.

The M-16 is very reliable. Of course the initial guns that were deployed to Vietnam did have their problems, the problems were not with the original design. The problems arose after the original design was messed with in cost cutting measures which included (among other things) not issuing the troops cleaning kits. After these problems were resolved the weapon still lives on today in the M-4 and M16A2. It is not by accident they are still used by our troops today. I own a civilian variant (no full auto capability) AR15 Colt, as well as an AK47, and both are excellent guns. The only problem you should encounter with regards to jamming is when you use cheap magazines... Spend a few $ more for name brand, or even better... Military surplus magazines, and you shouldn't ever have a problem. I'd rate both equally for reliability, but the Colt will hit the target more accurately past 100 yards. Now I'm very into target shooting, so if you're looking for a more sinister reason for someone owning these guns to further an anti gun agenda, try someone else.

 

[Spoonman]

Are you considering purchasing one; or are you attempting to elicit a justification for why the U.S. military fields what you seem to believe is an inferior weapon?

I'm not seeking to justify anything. But inasmuch as government spending has arisen as a primary factor in the present conflict between Republicans and Obama, it occurs to me that it's time to start looking closely at military expenditures which represent a major part of the Budget. Because I understand the M-16 costs three times as much as the AK-47.

In thinking about this I'm recalling things I've read, heard, and watched on tv about the M-16 and the AK-47. Because I have no experience with either weapon I'm asking for opinions from those who know better than I. And while I'm at it I might as well ask what kind of weapon you Brits field (it looks like an FN/FAL to me), how much it costs, and what you think of it.

Although I never was in combat I did spend four years in the Marine Corps, which included quite a bit of time on field maneuvers and in training exercises, so I have some awareness of what a weapon can be exposed to in terms of rain, mud, grit, and sand. The standard weapon at that time was the M-1 Garand, which is a supremely reliable combat weapon, as well as being deadly accurate and extremely powerful. It is known to take a beating and to function reliably under the worst conditions.

When the M-14, another highly reliable and efficient combat rifle was replaced by the Stoner M-16, at considerable expense, the first distribution was defective. Those weapons, which were issued to our troops in Vietnam, jammed, causing a number (unknown to me) of deaths -- which is a goddam shame!

Although the cause of that problem was determined and corrected I am led to believe the M-16 remains relatively prone to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. If that is true then the weapon cannot be considered reliable for combat deployment. And in my opinion reliability is a far more important concern than is long-range accuracy in a battlefield weapon. I can live with missing a 200 yard shot -- but I can't live if my weapon won't fire when I need it to most.

So what I'd like to elicit here are comments from those who have experience with either or both of the subject weapons.

The M-16 is very reliable. Of course the initial guns that were deployed to Vietnam did have their problems, the problems were not with the original design. The problems arose after the original design was messed with in cost cutting measures which included (among other things) not issuing the troops cleaning kits. After these problems were resolved the weapon still lives on today in the M-4 and M16A2. It is not by accident they are still used by our troops today. I own a civilian variant (no full auto capability) AR15 Colt, as well as an AK47, and both are excellent guns. The only problem you should encounter with regards to jamming is when you use cheap magazines... Spend a few $ more for name brand, or even better... Military surplus magazines, and you shouldn't ever have a problem. I'd rate both equally for reliability, but the Colt will hit the target more accurately past 100 yards. Now I'm very into target shooting, so if you're looking for a more sinister reason for someone owning these guns to further an anti gun agenda, try someone else.

ever try the pmags?

 

[eflatminor]

M-16 or AK-47. Which do you prefer. And why?

I've never handled either of them but based on what I've read and heard from experienced shooters I have my preference and I'd like to compare my thoughts.

What is the intended use of this firearm? I think that's the first question to ask.

Generally speaking, the AK is considered the most reliable of the two platforms, with the AR usually a more accurate at longer distances. Also generally speaking, the AR uses a smaller caliber round (20 caliber) vs the AK's 30 caliber bullet. They can vary however.

I assume you're talking about the semi automatic versions of those platforms, which would be an AR15. A full auto is very expensive and time consuming to acquire legally.

Anyway, what do you want one for?

 

[tjvh]

I'm not seeking to justify anything. But inasmuch as government spending has arisen as a primary factor in the present conflict between Republicans and Obama, it occurs to me that it's time to start looking closely at military expenditures which represent a major part of the Budget. Because I understand the M-16 costs three times as much as the AK-47.

In thinking about this I'm recalling things I've read, heard, and watched on tv about the M-16 and the AK-47. Because I have no experience with either weapon I'm asking for opinions from those who know better than I. And while I'm at it I might as well ask what kind of weapon you Brits field (it looks like an FN/FAL to me), how much it costs, and what you think of it.

Although I never was in combat I did spend four years in the Marine Corps, which included quite a bit of time on field maneuvers and in training exercises, so I have some awareness of what a weapon can be exposed to in terms of rain, mud, grit, and sand. The standard weapon at that time was the M-1 Garand, which is a supremely reliable combat weapon, as well as being deadly accurate and extremely powerful. It is known to take a beating and to function reliably under the worst conditions.

When the M-14, another highly reliable and efficient combat rifle was replaced by the Stoner M-16, at considerable expense, the first distribution was defective. Those weapons, which were issued to our troops in Vietnam, jammed, causing a number (unknown to me) of deaths -- which is a goddam shame!

Although the cause of that problem was determined and corrected I am led to believe the M-16 remains relatively prone to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. If that is true then the weapon cannot be considered reliable for combat deployment. And in my opinion reliability is a far more important concern than is long-range accuracy in a battlefield weapon. I can live with missing a 200 yard shot -- but I can't live if my weapon won't fire when I need it to most.

So what I'd like to elicit here are comments from those who have experience with either or both of the subject weapons.

The M-16 is very reliable. Of course the initial guns that were deployed to Vietnam did have their problems, the problems were not with the original design. The problems arose after the original design was messed with in cost cutting measures which included (among other things) not issuing the troops cleaning kits. After these problems were resolved the weapon still lives on today in the M-4 and M16A2. It is not by accident they are still used by our troops today. I own a civilian variant (no full auto capability) AR15 Colt, as well as an AK47, and both are excellent guns. The only problem you should encounter with regards to jamming is when you use cheap magazines... Spend a few $ more for name brand, or even better... Military surplus magazines, and you shouldn't ever have a problem. I'd rate both equally for reliability, but the Colt will hit the target more accurately past 100 yards. Now I'm very into target shooting, so if you're looking for a more sinister reason for someone owning these guns to further an anti gun agenda, try someone else.

ever try the pmags?

No... But I heard they are nice.

 

[CMike]

The AR is the better class gun.

The AK has a reputation for reliability.

 

[Spoonman]

The M-16 is very reliable. Of course the initial guns that were deployed to Vietnam did have their problems, the problems were not with the original design. The problems arose after the original design was messed with in cost cutting measures which included (among other things) not issuing the troops cleaning kits. After these problems were resolved the weapon still lives on today in the M-4 and M16A2. It is not by accident they are still used by our troops today. I own a civilian variant (no full auto capability) AR15 Colt, as well as an AK47, and both are excellent guns. The only problem you should encounter with regards to jamming is when you use cheap magazines... Spend a few $ more for name brand, or even better... Military surplus magazines, and you shouldn't ever have a problem. I'd rate both equally for reliability, but the Colt will hit the target more accurately past 100 yards. Now I'm very into target shooting, so if you're looking for a more sinister reason for someone owning these guns to further an anti gun agenda, try someone else.

ever try the pmags?

No... But I heard they are nice.

they are. never had a jam with one of them.

 

[tjvh]

ever try the pmags?

No... But I heard they are nice.

they are. never had a jam with one of them.

I'll take your word for it and try them out. Thanks.

 

[Oddball]

M-16 or AK-47. Which do you prefer. And why?

I've never handled either of them but based on what I've read and heard from experienced shooters I have my preference and I'd like to compare my thoughts.

Kalashnikov...You can beat it, kick it, roll it round in the mud and it just won't jam or otherwise malfunction.

And even has a scarier looking high capacity magazine that makes all the progressive/socialist wankers poop their pants.

 

[Spoonman]

M-16 or AK-47. Which do you prefer. And why?

I've never handled either of them but based on what I've read and heard from experienced shooters I have my preference and I'd like to compare my thoughts.

Kalashnikov...You can beat it, kick it, roll it round in the mud and it just won't jam or otherwise malfunction.

And even has a scarier looking high capacity magazine that makes all the progressive/socialist wankers poop their pants.

we have a 75 round drum for our AK 47

 

[Spoonman]

No... But I heard they are nice.

they are. never had a jam with one of them.

I'll take your word for it and try them out. Thanks.

also check out magpul followers. swap them out in your existing magazines. they will perform a lot better

Go directly to the magpul website. Most distributors are marking the stuff up ridiculously since the last shooting. you can buy the pmags there for $14.95, i just saw one site that had them for $51. insane

 

[MikeK]

I looked around and came across this video on the Guns & Ammo website. Again the comparison by two considered experts comes down to accuracy vs reliability, and I've made my position clear where that choice is concerned.

The M16 vs. AK47 - Guns & Ammo

 

[Politico]

In thinking about this I'm recalling things I've read, heard, and watched on tv about the M-16 and the AK-47. Because I have no experience with either weapon I'm asking for opinions from those who know better than I. And while I'm at it I might as well ask what kind of weapon you Brits field (it looks like an FN/FAL to me), how much it costs, and what you think of it.

I have seen them use a variety of weapons. Everything from C8s to G36s. Depends on what they're doing.

 

[CMike]

The US military uses the civilian version of the M16, the AR.


That should say a lot.

 

[CMike]

ever try the pmags?

No... But I heard they are nice.

they are. never had a jam with one of them.

I have never had a jam with my AR so far.

 

[asterism]

The US military uses the civilian version of the M16, the AR.


That should say a lot.

Actually, the AR (AR-15) is the civilian version of the M-16.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://youtu.be/RuwR4LLvoc4]American M16 vs Soviet AK-47 - YouTube[/ame]