M-16 vs. Ak-47
- Thread starter Edhem
- Start date
- Status
Nico Testosteros
New member
Lee Enfield No. 4
customaquatics
New member
i will sacrifice a little acruacy for more damage on impact. my vote AK-47!
HALLAUSTIN
New member
Please be a bit more specific
I dont want to step on anyone's toes so I will say that there is a time and place for every rifle. (I dont turkey hunt with my 30-06) If we had a more specific definition of "better" then our input may be more helpful.
I dont want to step on anyone's toes so I will say that there is a time and place for every rifle. (I dont turkey hunt with my 30-06) If we had a more specific definition of "better" then our input may be more helpful.
customaquatics
New member
but imagine if you did! just hit em when they extend there head out an shoot there head's off?
checkmyswag
New member
mini 14
Achilles11B
New member
With the possible exception being the charging handle, I think the ergonomics of the AR are more streamlined than the AK. Having a bolt hold-open gives the AR and advantage as well.
FIRST - you want to make an honest comparison, eliminate cartridge. All too many discussions starting with AR vs AK deteriorate into 5.56 vs 7.62x39. If you want an honest discussion (already suspect ) then move forward ignoring it. After all, you can get either one in either cartridge.
SECOND - IIs one more ergonomic than the other? The real point of a gun design is how well the operator can use the controls and accurately fire and reload. As kraigwy said, you can shoot the AR, and drop the mag keeping the firing hand on the grip. What you can also do is load the magazine and drop the bolt to chamber the first round with the other.
The AK won't, you have to move the hand off the grip and cycle the bolt to chamber one. And, shoving the full mag against a closed bolt isn't fun, either. Fully loaded mags have a lot of spring pressure under the top round.
"They're both equally good." is NOT a credible opinion. After all, as said, visit the competitive firing lines of rifle matches and see for yourself. AR's dominate in self loading action competition, AK's fall behind the performance curve. They are less operator friendly, as described. New shooters - and most soldiers are new to shooting - need to have weapons easy to operate. NOT weapons that are harder to load, take longer, and keep the shooters hand off the trigger. That's more downtime to do what a soldier in combat doesn't want to take a long time doing.
If you are combat arms trained, that means professionals determined not only what tactics work best, but also what weapons. Over 65 nations have deliberately and voluntarily chosen to use the Stoner weapons design. AK? Sorry, with warehouses literally filled to the brim, the Russian army generals are actually voicing the opinion that they would prefer something better.
What's better is the FN SCAR, Beretta ARX, Remington ACR, and the M4 - which they ALL copy. The controls, grip, magwell, and use of rails are all common. Look at all the new designs since the M16 - they either enhance it further, or die.
AK's a dying design. Not even Chinese first line issue anymore. Already a Curio and Relic of bygone times, like the Win 94 or 03A3. Nothing wrong with liking them, but they aren't the best in modern combat.
SECOND - IIs one more ergonomic than the other? The real point of a gun design is how well the operator can use the controls and accurately fire and reload. As kraigwy said, you can shoot the AR, and drop the mag keeping the firing hand on the grip. What you can also do is load the magazine and drop the bolt to chamber the first round with the other.
The AK won't, you have to move the hand off the grip and cycle the bolt to chamber one. And, shoving the full mag against a closed bolt isn't fun, either. Fully loaded mags have a lot of spring pressure under the top round.
"They're both equally good." is NOT a credible opinion. After all, as said, visit the competitive firing lines of rifle matches and see for yourself. AR's dominate in self loading action competition, AK's fall behind the performance curve. They are less operator friendly, as described. New shooters - and most soldiers are new to shooting - need to have weapons easy to operate. NOT weapons that are harder to load, take longer, and keep the shooters hand off the trigger. That's more downtime to do what a soldier in combat doesn't want to take a long time doing.
If you are combat arms trained, that means professionals determined not only what tactics work best, but also what weapons. Over 65 nations have deliberately and voluntarily chosen to use the Stoner weapons design. AK? Sorry, with warehouses literally filled to the brim, the Russian army generals are actually voicing the opinion that they would prefer something better.
What's better is the FN SCAR, Beretta ARX, Remington ACR, and the M4 - which they ALL copy. The controls, grip, magwell, and use of rails are all common. Look at all the new designs since the M16 - they either enhance it further, or die.
AK's a dying design. Not even Chinese first line issue anymore. Already a Curio and Relic of bygone times, like the Win 94 or 03A3. Nothing wrong with liking them, but they aren't the best in modern combat.
I think it's an obnoxious and tiresome argument. Might as well gloat about why your AR15 is better than an SKS, or why your Remington 700 is better than a Mosin Nagant.
More often than not, it's a "target rifle with good ammo vs an imported parts kit (possibly worn) taken apart and reassembled by monkeys and fired with Wolf ammo".
I'm just tired of it and don't have the energy to complain about why I hate it so much.
More often than not, it's a "target rifle with good ammo vs an imported parts kit (possibly worn) taken apart and reassembled by monkeys and fired with Wolf ammo".
I'm just tired of it and don't have the energy to complain about why I hate it so much.
Last edited:
customaquatics
New member
with the possible threat of zombie's im not going to be trying to snipe with my AK. so i like the damage it cause's within 100 yards.
tahunua001
New member
at last tirod...we agree on something
I wont comment on the ACR though...dont wanna start a flame war but I also agree with your addressing of everyone's objection to the charging handle on the AR. I can drop a mag, load a new one, charge, and release the bolt, all without removing my firing hand from the grip and losing positive control of the weapon. the only action that requires removal of the firing hand is to lock the bolt to the rear without an empty mag inserted but at that point you are much more likely to be at home cleaning than in the field.
with the AK I have to either remove the firing hand to charge or I have to cant the gun to the side in order to charge with the non firing hand, either way is awkward and strange to me and dropping a mag and reinserting a new one requires full concentration on the matter at hand since you have to find the mag catch, hook the lip of the mag in and rock it into position where as an AR has a single releace button that you can hit with your trigger finger and the mag will drop on it's own and I can reload without even having to look at the gun so I can keep my attention directed down range
Such a tiresome, pedantic arguement. The fact is, in the recent history of AK vs AR in actual combat, if we did not have an overwhelming advantage in night vision, cannon, and air power, the stated advantages of the AR would not have made any difference in the outcome of any battles.
tahunua001
New member
pedantic is an awful sophisticated word for us simple folk...
one could argue that your comments are also shallow and pedantic
that's right, shallow and pedantic
one could argue that your comments are also shallow and pedantic
that's right, shallow and pedantic
Stressfire
New member
- Status