Bamashooter
New member
Another vote for the mini-14.
M-16 vs. Ak-47
- Thread starter Edhem
- Start date
- Status
Bamashooter
New member
Another vote for the mini-14. I dont trust the AR and I hate the AK or anything that shoots the 7.62x39 round. Just my opinion.
Maybe ar will not penetrate as 762 will it is just because of the mass of the grain. ar ammo have bigger catridge, moving faster, but if it hits something it will simply run too early of kinetic enrgy, and fragmentation will occur. Which is very bad thing. If youre hit with one of them while wearing dragon s. it is very likely that some of those thiny shrapnels can damage your face, neck, shoulders very badly.
It doesnt need to hit you directly. It just can hit a wall behind you, and you can be injured. As for those that says well, ill use green tipped 565, i can say that you can damage the barrel with that, becaus those are armor piercing (panzeer) grains that arent made from anything else but pure steel. You can never fill your magazine with mixed stuff, because soetimes you just need to fill it with anything on disposal. Searching for any other but normal type can take some time.
Bosnian army had accepted ara2, just like any other American weaponry in last two decades.
But those that went to afga, as bases security chooses ak instead.
I dont wanna talk to much, cos each of them is made simply for killing people.
Idiot am i because i started this topic.
It doesnt need to hit you directly. It just can hit a wall behind you, and you can be injured. As for those that says well, ill use green tipped 565, i can say that you can damage the barrel with that, becaus those are armor piercing (panzeer) grains that arent made from anything else but pure steel. You can never fill your magazine with mixed stuff, because soetimes you just need to fill it with anything on disposal. Searching for any other but normal type can take some time.
Bosnian army had accepted ara2, just like any other American weaponry in last two decades.
But those that went to afga, as bases security chooses ak instead.
I dont wanna talk to much, cos each of them is made simply for killing people.
Idiot am i because i started this topic.
tahunua001
New member
actually green tipped 5.56x45mm is a steel core surrounded by lead with a standard thickness copper jacket. shooting a 62grain penetrator round is no different than shooting a 62 grain soft tip designed for hunting.
hi point nut
Inactive
sigh...
this again realy ok so i dont like the reliabelty of the AR and the ak is ok but for all pratical applications i would take a mini14 there even making it in 6.8 spec so theres your compremise
this again realy ok so i dont like the reliabelty of the AR and the ak is ok but for all pratical applications i would take a mini14 there even making it in 6.8 spec so theres your compremise
I'm not sure about the brand of AK the guy had, I was so underwhelmed I didn't ask. It did however have at least a 16in barrel. I have a S&W M&P-15, 16in barrel. Perhaps I shouldn't have said never but I do know I won't go out searching for one in the future (Honestly one semi auto ammo burner is enough for me). I'm sure there are some great AKs out there just like I know there are better AR style rifles than what I have. But for comparisons' sake my S&W won hands down, and that isn't owner pride coming out.
Best of all worlds - Fireman214
New member
Honestly it's a matter of personal choice and the different training/ combat tactics of the respective forces using said weapons. My partner on the ambulance is an immigrant from soviet Russia and we have had this discussion many times. The philosophy behind the AK is that ammo is cheap the weapon is cheap so spray as much lead at your target as possible. That is why on the military version the first fire selector position is full auto and the second is burst. With the M16 the soldier is trained to hit what he is aiming at and kill it efficiently. That is why the first fire selector position on the M16 is single shot and the second is burst. So it really comes down to six of one and half a dozen of the other. They both have their uses, strengths and weaknesses. What it really come down to in the end is the training and familiarity with the weapon on the part of the user.
It's NOT a matter of personal choice. One weapon is better than another. What's lacking on most forums are trained and experienced soldiers who know better speaking up. After all, why would they want to given that most of the naysayers aren't part of the club, and spout anecdotal BS from unnamed third parties?
Here's a test that points out which has superior ergonomics: take an AR, an AK, ten mags each loaded with one round, and space them out down a table on the firing line.
Load and shoot the gun thru the ten mags, and time it. The AR wins. In the hands of a good shooter, the AR not only is faster, but also more accurate.
Since my last post, two things keep coming up, and it's smoke and mirrors: The cartridge isn't the issue - it's not about ammo. The OP proposed M16 vs. AK-47, and since both guns have been sold in both calibers, that's not the question. For every problem one might have, it's still a problem in the other gun. In science terms, it levels the playing field, and that leaves us with how the gun is used by the soldier. That's more important anyway.
The second sidetrack is tactics. How a small group manuevers and shoots depends on it's level of training, the amount that organization has updated it's doctrines, and what level of support the organization gives it. All that has nothing to do with which gun is better.
Most American shooters relate to traditional guns, and the romance of blued steel and walnut. They simply don't like or want change, it's not part of the culture, and something New doesn't fit into their mindset. What's ironic is that the American Army actually took The Great Leap Forward in adopting the M16, and they waited long enough to pick from the good designs already on the market.
While they likely wouldn't have considered the AK, look what else was available - the FNFAL, G3, M14, and a dozen others on the table in the 1950's. Ironically, none has survived, even downsized to an intermediate cartridge. The reason is ergonomics, not caliber. The other designs aren't all that easy to use, either. Right hand operating rods and safeties that force the user to lose their grip are a FAIL.
You can like whatever gun you want, but when the chips are down, 20 million Americans did quite well with the M16 in service, and the battle statistics show consistently lopsided results when others attempt combat against us. They LOSE. Even the Taliban know better to try an even fight, they'd rather use IED's, or forces far outnumbering us. Even then, they get hurt.
What's disappointing is that despite the obvious results of our use of the M16/M4 over the last 45 years, the general public remains in deep denial of what is obvious - the M16 works, and quite well. Perfect, no. Neither are the shooters themselves. And all too often, they blame the gun for their mistakes. After all, to them, it's about image and status, not facts. We're not a culture that raises men to be humble, more likely, it's preferred to be aggressively self promoting.
It's hard to discuss reality in an egocentric crowd of Donald Trumps. And those that prefer old school out of date guns they never used in the day seem to be the most vocal about what they can't possibly know about.
Typically American.
Here's a test that points out which has superior ergonomics: take an AR, an AK, ten mags each loaded with one round, and space them out down a table on the firing line.
Load and shoot the gun thru the ten mags, and time it. The AR wins. In the hands of a good shooter, the AR not only is faster, but also more accurate.
Since my last post, two things keep coming up, and it's smoke and mirrors: The cartridge isn't the issue - it's not about ammo. The OP proposed M16 vs. AK-47, and since both guns have been sold in both calibers, that's not the question. For every problem one might have, it's still a problem in the other gun. In science terms, it levels the playing field, and that leaves us with how the gun is used by the soldier. That's more important anyway.
The second sidetrack is tactics. How a small group manuevers and shoots depends on it's level of training, the amount that organization has updated it's doctrines, and what level of support the organization gives it. All that has nothing to do with which gun is better.
Most American shooters relate to traditional guns, and the romance of blued steel and walnut. They simply don't like or want change, it's not part of the culture, and something New doesn't fit into their mindset. What's ironic is that the American Army actually took The Great Leap Forward in adopting the M16, and they waited long enough to pick from the good designs already on the market.
While they likely wouldn't have considered the AK, look what else was available - the FNFAL, G3, M14, and a dozen others on the table in the 1950's. Ironically, none has survived, even downsized to an intermediate cartridge. The reason is ergonomics, not caliber. The other designs aren't all that easy to use, either. Right hand operating rods and safeties that force the user to lose their grip are a FAIL.
You can like whatever gun you want, but when the chips are down, 20 million Americans did quite well with the M16 in service, and the battle statistics show consistently lopsided results when others attempt combat against us. They LOSE. Even the Taliban know better to try an even fight, they'd rather use IED's, or forces far outnumbering us. Even then, they get hurt.
What's disappointing is that despite the obvious results of our use of the M16/M4 over the last 45 years, the general public remains in deep denial of what is obvious - the M16 works, and quite well. Perfect, no. Neither are the shooters themselves. And all too often, they blame the gun for their mistakes. After all, to them, it's about image and status, not facts. We're not a culture that raises men to be humble, more likely, it's preferred to be aggressively self promoting.
It's hard to discuss reality in an egocentric crowd of Donald Trumps. And those that prefer old school out of date guns they never used in the day seem to be the most vocal about what they can't possibly know about.
Typically American.
Willie Lowman
New member
We'll get to the bottom of this one yet!
Fireman214
New member
@ Willie, point taken and a very amusing picture.
Palmetto-Pride
New member
It does still amaze me all the people that still bite on this............lol
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Battlefield tactical doctrine commonly determines weapon design. If you don't know the difference between the doctrines of the USSR and the US, you can't really compare the battlefield utility in this AK vs. AR argument.
Go back to the Cold War years for your study, and then start a new thread after you have done so.
Go back to the Cold War years for your study, and then start a new thread after you have done so.
- Status