[762]

... basically replacing the whole bloody thing.

Thus the reason I choose the M16 platform - because it is so simple to do such things. You could do it in the field in less than a minute - if you have the wrench for the barrel, that is.

Or you (me, him, Bob) could just pop a pin to swap out the upper.

[War Angel]

Thus the reason I choose the M16 platform - because it is so simple to do such things. You could do it in the field in less than a minute - if you have the wrench for the barrel, that is.

Replace the entire mechanism to an AK-47-like operation, change the barrel and... basically everything else? In less than a minute? I'm not even sure an M-16 with Kalashnikov innards exists...

Or maybe I didn't get what you're trying to say right.

[BooKofElisha]

I'll keep my SOCOM

[762]

Nothing about AK style operation, War Angel. Swapping a bolt/carrier and the barrel of an AR platform happens quite quickly. Simply swapping out an upper goes even faster.
I don't see where the AK47 innards idea is coming from?

[War Angel]

I don't see where the AK47 innards idea is coming from?

Because it is superior to the M-16 mechanism. The M-16 operation is dirty, flawed and clumsy, if cheap to manufacture and assemble.

[Wolfman]

It depends. For long range combat, I want an M16A2 or A3. The max effective range of an AK47 is only about 300 meters, and that implies the person has some actually combat training. Most of the people the military is going to see using that weapon series has little to no marksmanship training (especially compared to the US military). An M16 is able to hit a point target (ie, a person) at 550 meters. Thats nearly double the range.

For close in combat (ie MOUT) I'd want an M4 series weapon. The reason is that the M4 can be modified more then the M16 series or Ak47 series. At MOUT range the size of the round isn't going to make much difference (20 meters away you aren't going to care if you got hit with a 9 mil handgun round or a 50 cal round -- dead is dead). The M4 takes it because of the shinny features you can add on (flashlights and lasers aside, it gives you the option to put on a grenade launcher).

For medium range (2-300 meters) I'll take the AK47. This is the range were round size is going to become an issue, but so is accuaracy. The AK series may be alot of potentional in that last area, but it tends to outshot it's firer. So, AK, but I'd want some training with it.

Now, all this being it said, it largely depends on who's paying for what. If I'm paying, I'll probably actually get a 22 rifle (cheap, but deadly). If the government is paying (and I'm going to be fighting in an urban area) M4 series. I personnaly don't mind weapons maintence. It's really not that bad. If an armorer gets involved, it can be hard. But, if it's just you sitting in Iraq between patrols, it's not that bad. I've also never had an M16 misfire on me. And I've fired 20 year old M16's.

[Zerogouki]

Okay, so we're talking only AK-47 vs. the earliest versions of the M16

Wrong.

Or maybe you'd like to take into account newer, improved M-16 models? Maybe the M16A2, which only came around 1980?

Yes, the M16A2 counts as an M16.

Care to elaborate?

Sure. An assault rifle is officially defined as any magazine-fed, selective-fire weapon that uses an intermediate-power cartridge.

It has all the characteristics of an AR.

No it doesn't. Assault rifles use intermediate-power cartridges, whereas the M14 uses a full-power cartridge.

By the way, it's inadvisable to shorten "assault rifle" to "AR", given that AR already means something else.

Is the FN-FAL not an assault-rifle, either?

Nope. Battle rifle.

Some may call it and rifles like it (i.e. FN-FAL) a "Battle Rifle" because of main use as a designated marksman rifle, and its larger caliber round

The caliber is irrelevant. The M14 and AK-47 are the same caliber, but the M14 has much more powder behind the bullet.

although IMHO this is just splitting hairs.

It's not "splitting hairs". It's following the official, factual definition.

It's fully-automatic and not chain-fed, so it's an AR by any definition except the one that is actually used by the world's armed forces and other people who, unlike myself, know what the hell they're talking about.

Fixed.

[Smilin' Dave]

Giving the M-16 the edge based on its improvements over time... okay fair enough. Excluding any development on the AK design for no apparent reason than the thread title? Idiotic. If the AK-74 had been called AK-47 mk2 (in the same way we can apparently allow the M16A2) would it have been allowed to be discussed in this thread?

Piano Red won this thread back on page one by noting that the two weapons come from different philosophies and do different jobs. In a military situation neither weapon was supposed to go head to head. When the Soviet infantry wanted reasonably precise ranged firepower they used the Dragunov, when the US infantry wants to lay down heavy fire it goes with the SAW (or its predecessors). Then you have to consider the different function of the two formations!

[War Angel]

Wrong.

Actually, no.

Yes, the M16A2 counts as an M16.

Okay, so the AKM counts as an AK-47A2. Your rules, not mine.

Sure. An assault rifle is officially defined as any magazine-fed, selective-fire weapon that uses an intermediate-power cartridge.

Also with a pistol-grip. As for the cartridge - that's fairly relative. The 7.62X51 is indeed powerful, but there are larger ones. It could be considered mid-range.

No it doesn't. Assault rifles use intermediate-power cartridges, whereas the M14 uses a full-power cartridge.

So, it's an assault-rifle using a larger caliber. Either way, these are semantics - assault rifles are also 'battle rifles', and there's no clear indication anywhere of what a 'battle rifle' is. I am a serviceman, and I am not familiar with this classification. There are pistols, SMGs, ARs and MGs.

given that AR already means something else.

Anal Rape?

Nope. Battle rifle.

A term that only appeared, apparently, after rifles with less powerful cartridges were made.

Fixed.

How much military experience do you have, Zero?

If the AK-74 had been called AK-47 mk2 (in the same way we can apparently allow the M16A2) would it have been allowed to be discussed in this thread?

That was my point, earlier on. Hey, nevermind the AK-74, a different rifle for a different round, Zero doesn't even consider the AKM, a practically identical rifle to the AK-47, to be an AK.

[Huck]

Out-of the box with no modification I would choose the AK-47 over the AR-15 for most engagements based upon the round, simplicity of maintenance, and reliability. I have fired both types of firearms extensively and that is what I think. Both can be lobbed out to awesome ranges with respectable accuracy, but for practical use with open sights in realistic conditions the AK will serve better in my humble opinion.

[Zerogouki]

If the AK-74 had been called AK-47 mk2 (in the same way we can apparently allow the M16A2) would it have been allowed to be discussed in this thread?

It would have been an option, yes.

Protip: You're already allowed to discuss the AK-74, just like you're allowed to discuss any other weapon that doesn't count.

Actually, no.

Actually, yes, unless you can demonstrate that the M16A2 through M16A4 are not M16s. Good luck with that.

Okay, so the AKM counts as an AK-47A2

No, it counts as an AKM. Stop making shit up.

Your rules, not mine.

Wrong. My rules are that the AK-47 is an AK-47 and the AKM is an AKM. Stop making shit up.

Also with a pistol-grip.

That is not part of the definition of an assault rifle, though many politicians (who don't know anything about guns) will claim that it is a characteristic of an "assault weapon".

As for the cartridge - that's fairly relative. The 7.62X51 is indeed powerful, but there are larger ones. It could be considered mid-range.

The 7.62mm NATO round is not, in any way, an intermediate cartridge. No military, paramilitary, police, or mercenary group considers it to be an intermediate cartridge, and its power is extremely similar to that of the .30-06 Springfield, 7.62x54mm Russian, and 7.92x57mm Mauser, which are also universally considered full-power cartridges.

So, it's an assault-rifle using a larger caliber.

No. As I've already explained, caliber is irrelevant.

assault rifles are also 'battle rifles'

Wrong. Battle rifles fire full-power cartridges. Assault rifles fire intermediate-power cartridges. There is no overlap between these groups.

there's no clear indication anywhere of what a 'battle rifle' is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle

You fail again.

There are pistols, SMGs, ARs and MGs.

So the Mauser 98k, M1 Garand, Barrett M82, every shotgun ever made, etc. were just mass hallucinations?

Anal Rape?

Armalite (as in AR-10 and AR-15).

A term that only appeared, apparently, after rifles with less powerful cartridges were made.

Retroactive classifications are not inherently false.

How much military experience do you have, Zero?

Seriously though, military experience doesn't make you an expert on the design and classification of firearms, just like driving experience doesn't make you a mechanic.

Zero doesn't even consider the AKM, a practically identical rifle to the AK-47, to be an AK.

Bullshit. What I said was that the AKM wasn't an AK-47. I never said that it wasn't an AK.

[QatzelOk]

I prefer the M-16 because it lets me be me.

[762]

Because it is superior to the M-16 mechanism. The M-16 operation is dirty, flawed and clumsy, if cheap to manufacture and assemble.

The AK47 action has but one thing in its favor, that is, how poorly it is designed and manufactured.

The AK47 action is a dirty action - only that dirt does not affect operation, thus it is overlooked.
The AK47 is heavily flawed.
The AK47 is extremely clumsy.
The M16 was not made to be cheap - you buy a cheap M16 you get what you pay for.

To all their own. I'd take an AK47 in a jungle, but I'd rather have an M16 in nearly any other environment.

Oh and about the assault rifle/battle rifle thing going on here. "Battle Rifle" is a term that has been officially used by many militaries, most commonly used in the day of .30 caliber bolt action rifles. "Assault Rifle" has never been used as an official term of classification of any firearm in the military since WWII (Germans), however through cultural influence it has been weeded in through youngsters joined the military. Any data showing otherwise I'd very much like to be shared.

[Zerogouki]

The AK47 is heavily flawed.
The AK47 is extremely clumsy.

Specifics plz.

[Typhoon]

how poorly it is designed and manufactured.

I wouldnt call the lower tolerance used by the AK-47 design poor, it was ruggedly produced and well designed but without being over engineered.

[Igor Antunov]

The AK-47 was released 15 years prior to the M-16, and yet we still find merit in comparing rifles from two different generations. It is a testament to the sturdiness, reliability and ease of use of the AK-47.

[War Angel]

It is a testament to the sturdiness, reliability and ease of use of the AK-47.

But not its weight, accuracy or ergonomics.

[Igor Antunov]

Weight, accuracy and ergonomics can all be compensated for with adequate training on the users part. Unreliability, lack of stopping power, etc cannot.

[Zerogouki]

It is a testament to the sturdiness, reliability and ease of use of the Kalashnikov mechanism

Fixed.

[War Angel]

Weight, accuracy and ergonomics can all be compensated for with adequate training on the users part.

Training will not make the weapon lighter or more accurate, nor more comfortable to hold and fire.

Unreliability, lack of stopping power, etc cannot.

Unreliability can be overcome with proper maintenance. Lack of stopping power.. just aim properly or fire another round.