[Zerogouki]

Discuss.

I like the M16 because it looks cooler and is made of plastic, and you can attach flashlights and shit to it.

[Zagadka]

Depends on the scenario.

And, unlike the idiots on Ultimate Warrior or whatever that dreck is called, you have to consider that AKs are cheap as fuck, easy to use, and don't require as much cleaning etc. You also have to take skill into account... and body armor, for penetration, ammo type... you may end up asking "M1-A1 versus a Kia Spectra"

[Brio]

I like the Kalashnikov better because it has more stopping power, its reliability is legendary, and its ease of manufacture means that they can be produced in huge numbers making them extremely cheap, especially in the third world (you could buy a Kalashnikov for $25-$50 on the black market in Benin for instance).

[Dr House]

AK, hands down.

[Captain Sam]

M16.
AK-47 is an inaccurate piece of shit. It's the poor man's gun.
The only think the AK-47 has going for it is that it's cheap and durable.

[Il Duce]

I don't know why people still keep on talking about the Ak-47 when there's AK-74's and AK-103's etc.

[Infidelis]

The m16 (or even the civilian AR15) are more customizable and better for long distance shooting, but the AK has a bigger round and more seemingly more durability from how loosely I recall the fitting being.

As a citizen, I'd much rather have an AK...just more practical and cheaper.

I don't know why people still keep on talking about the Ak-47 when there's AK-74's and AK-103's etc.

More recognizable...just like how the OP coulda said M4...

[Falx]

I have an idea for the next thread:
Which do you like better potatoes or oranges?
Oranges for the win! FUCK YOU IRELAND!

[Nets]

FUCK YOU IRELAND!

I can drink to that.

And I prefer potatoes.

[Oblisk]

M-16:
Attack: 12-17
+6 to Imperialism
-13 to Intelligence
+3 to Fatigue
+1 to Morale
-50% Charisma
-25% Luck
-3 Armour
+10% attack speed

Kalashnikov:
Attack: 20-27
+20% attack to teammates around you
+4 Morale
+5 Strength + Armor
-60% Barter Skills
+100% Charisma
+30% Ammo capacity
+4 Encumbrance

[Dr House]

M-16:
Attack: 12-17
+6 to Imperialism
-13 to Intelligence
+3 to Fatigue
+1 to Morale
-50% Charisma
-25% Luck
-3 Armour
+10% attack speed

Kalashnikov:
Attack: 20-27
+20% attack to teammates around you
+4 Morale
+5 Strength + Armor
-60% Barter Skills
+100% Charisma
+30% Ammo capacity
+4 Encumbrance

[Cartertonian]

For use as a basic infantry IW, the AK family are better weapons due to their durability, mechanical simplicity, larger round (bigger hole) and all-round idiot-proofing (we are talking about an infantry weapon after all!)

However, as other posters have noted, the M16 wins on accuracy and also on build-quality. Stoppages are life-ending events on a battlefield.

It's interesting to me, from a UK perspective, that when we had the problems with our 5.56mm rifle, we considered both the M16 (already in use with our SF) and the AK family. But - sadly in my view - domestic political pressure with regard to 'British jobs for British workers' (!) meant that rather than spend a few million replacing every SA-80 with an off-the-shelf M16, they decided to spend more millions upgrading our SA-80.

Incidentally, my major complaint about our SA-80, and the reason why I'd prefer either an M16 or an AK, is the fact that due to its bullpup design (magazine and working parts rearward of the pistol-grip) it cannot be fired left-handed. I still get marksman scores firing right-handed, but I'd love to get back to a left-handed weapon.

[War Angel]

Depends on the situation. If I'm well provided for, M16. If I'm stuck in shit, Kalachnikov. Although with good maintenance, the M16 is reliable enough. You just can't abuse it like you would its Russian counterpart.

[Verv]

Zag is right.

You also have to take into account that there are AK-47s that are manufactured poorly in some places which makes them far less accurate than they could be.

If you look at the general specs, the M16 is superior in most things except for stopping power and durability, and depending on the model of M16, suppressive fire...

But, at the end of the day, blah.

OK?

(sorry -- I could have put more effort into this and googled some things but sometimes thinking about military things becomes painful to my brain and brings back bad memories -- not bad like, 'dude, I've been through DA SHIT and I'm a SUPER SOLDIER,' but bad like, 'dude... remember cleaning M16s from 4 PM until 11 PM on a fucking Friday because of some ridiculous inspection the armorer didn't prepare for?')

[Typhoon]

Dependant on circumstance.

But in my opinion the AK-47 offered a better overall package with more fire power, better reliability and a much better economic argument. If you feel the need to address the accuracy at range issue with the AK-47 then do what the Soviet armed forces did and mix in some rifles like the Dragunov.

[Rancid]

M16

It's about bullet placement, not round size.

I find Falx very annoying.

[Dr House]

I find Falx very annoying.

Join the club.

[Zerogouki]

Now that my internets are more faster, I can elaborate on my vote:

The only real strengths of the AK-47 are that it is cheap and indestructible. It's the weapon of choice for sand monkeys who are too dumb to properly clean their guns, too poor to buy a gun that was made more recently than the stone age, and have such shitty aim that the Kalashnikov's lack of accuracy isn't really an issue.

The M16, meanwhile, has aged pretty well. The initial jamming problems with the XM16E1 have disappeared, and the M16 is now considered very reliable. The M16 is substantially lighter and more accurate than the AK-47, and can be fitted with grenade-launchers, flashlights, laser pointers, scopes, silencers, whatever. The versatility of the M16 is complemented by the versatility of its ammo. Despite complaints about its stopping power, the 5.56mm can destroy cinderblocks and leave multiple exit wounds, and is not something that you want to get hit by unless you're wearing body armor (in which case even the Soviet round would leave nothing more than a bruise). In the event that the first round fails to drop the target, squeezing off a second or third is no big deal: the barrel of the M16 is directly in line with the buttstock, which, combined with the low recoil of the 5.56mm round, virtually eliminates muzzle climb (thus improving accuracy even further). Furthermore, the light weight of the 5.56 allows more ammo to be carried, thus ensuring that you have those extra rounds when you need them. The AK-47, by contrast, is completely unusable in full auto unless what you really need is a shotgun.

Basically, the M16 is designed to be able to spray a target with lead from a half-mile away with godlike precision, whereas the AK-47 just yells "Hulk smash!" and hopes that the target gets in its way.

You also have to take skill into account... and body armor, for penetration, ammo type... you may end up asking "M1-A1 versus a Kia Spectra"

I don't know why people still keep on talking about the Ak-47 when there's AK-74's and AK-103's etc.

Indeen; the M16 and AK-47 are a generation apart, and are not really comparable. A FAIR comparison would have been between the M16 and the AK-74m, or the HK416 and AK-101. However, I was not interested in a fair comparison

It's interesting to me, from a UK perspective, that when we had the problems with our 5.56mm rifle, we considered both the M16 (already in use with our SF) and the AK family. But - sadly in my view - domestic political pressure with regard to 'British jobs for British workers' (!) meant that rather than spend a few million replacing every SA-80 with an off-the-shelf M16, they decided to spend more millions upgrading our SA-80.

SA-80? Don't you mean L85?

Incidentally, my major complaint about our SA-80, and the reason why I'd prefer either an M16 or an AK

You don't want an M16 or AK. You want a Barrett REC7

is the fact that due to its bullpup design (magazine and working parts rearward of the pistol-grip) it cannot be fired left-handed. I still get marksman scores firing right-handed, but I'd love to get back to a left-handed weapon.

Being a bullpup rifle has nothing to do with ambidexterity. The Steyr AUG, for example, is an ambidextrous bullpup design.

[Cartertonian]

Being a bullpup rifle has nothing to do with ambidexterity. The Steyr AUG, for example, is an ambidextrous bullpup design

Sorry, Zerogouki, but that's not technically correct. The Steyr (as used by my Aussie buddies) is an ambidextrous bullpup weapon - BUT - only when it has been converted from right-handed firing to left-handed firing.

The SA-80 (we call it!) offers no such utility and because the working parts are where your face would be if you tried to fire it left-handed, it is right-handed only!

[Falx]

I find Falx very annoying.

That's only because I'm better than you. Way better, at everything.