9 out of 10 times i choose the AK-47 over the M16. The only time i use the M16 is when im playing a game type that involves watching a base, such as search and destroy because then i can camp far away from it and easily be able to kill the enemy without having to worry about recoil.
AK-47 is better, as it was so far ahead of it's time (made in 1947, and by far beat all other assault rifles of the time).
Oh and btw it's not just because it is cheap just that the Soviet Union made so many of them that the demand couldn't catch up.
Basic laws of supply and demand:
If the supply exceeds the demand, the price will drop If the demand exceeeds the supply, the price will raise. Equilibrium price is the price at which the supply and demand are equal.
Not to say the M16 wasn't good, but the AK-47 was so far ahead of its time and was so effective (even sand in the barrel couldn't stop it), that it dominated the battlefield for multiple years.
i doubt you read the link so lemme show you some initial problems with the M-16
1. The M16 was billed as self-cleaning when it was in fact far from that. 2. The rifle was issued to troops without cleaning kits or instruction on how to clean the rifle. 3. The rifle was tested and approved with the use of a DuPont IMR powder that was switched to a ball powder that increased both wear and fouling. 4. The lack of a chrome liner for the barrel and chamber created a corrosion problem and contributed to brass case swelling and extraction problems. 5. Lack of a forward assist rendered the rifle inoperable in combat when it jammed.
ok then, YOU show some proof of the AK's lesser than the M-16
The AK-47 is was meant to be replaced in 1974 by the AK-74. The AK-47 is designed after the M-16 with Russian design.
AK-47: Fires a little bit bigger bullet (not much bigger), accuracy is pretty much irrelevant with that weapon. It's more of a pray and spray type of weapon. It is cheaply made (thus why it is used worldwide) and they're not invincible. They will jam, they will overheat, and they will break.
M-16: Fires a small round making it more accurate and it can fire at a much higher rate of fire. It has an option for semi-automatic, 3-round burst, and full auto. It's predecessor, the M-14 is the sniper rifle variant, although the M-16 can also be used a long range weapon when equipped with a scope. Making it a deadly weapon at long range and mid-range. The M-16 will succumb to jams and breaks easier than the M-16, but resists overheating much better.
The AK-47 is was meant to be replaced in 1974 by the AK-74. The AK-47 is designed after the M-16 with Russian design.
AK-47: Fires a little bit bigger bullet (not much bigger), accuracy is pretty much irrelevant with that weapon. It's more of a pray and spray type of weapon. It is cheaply made (thus why it is used worldwide) and they're not invincible. They will jam, they will overheat, and they will break.
M-16: Fires a small round making it more accurate and it can fire at a much higher rate of fire. It has an option for semi-automatic, 3-round burst, and full auto. It's predecessor, the M-14 is the sniper rifle variant, although the M-16 can also be used a long range weapon when equipped with a scope. Making it a deadly weapon at long range and mid-range. The M-16 will succumb to jams and breaks easier than the M-16, but resists overheating much better.
arguing with the little kid was fun, but at least this is evidence
i'd still go with the AK though :P i prefer reliability and stopping power over accuracy
also
The AK-47 is designed after the M-16 with Russian design.
how so? the AK was developed in the 40's when the M 16 was developed in the late 50's
It doesn't matter about the weapon when it all comes down to killing, all you gotta have is a gun. And the gun doesn't make the better fighter. A gun is better over another gun if the person using it feels comfortable with it. Thats what I believe.
arguing with the little kid was fun, but at least this is evidence
Eh, he made a few good points, but mostly it was just his opinion.
i'd still go with the AK though :P i prefer reliability and stopping power over accuracy
I think it really depends on the terrain. The M-16 would obviously be better in a wide open, urban type of setting, while the AK-47 would be better in a rural or "dirtier" type of environment.
how so? the AK was developed in the 40's when the M 16 was developed in the late 50's
I'm sorry about that, I meant that that the AK-74 was designed after the M-16 with Russian design. The AK-74 is meant to replace the AK-47 in more modern wars and battles.
It doesn't matter about the weapon when it all comes down to killing, all you gotta have is a gun. And the gun doesn't make the better fighter. A gun is better over another gun if the person using it feels comfortable with it. Thats what I believe.
I can kindly agree with your statement. Although skill does have a lot to do with fighting, the guns also make a different in combat as well. Look at Vietnam, we had highly trained soldiers getting wasted by people with AK-47 who more than likely, have never been trained in their lives.
