[Piano Red]

Zerogouki is god.

I felt a need to post on this thread after reading alot of the usual banter for why the AK-47 supposedly edges out the the M-16 by its supporters, but his post eliminated that urge.

Anyone who's actually fired both guns (and their variants) knows that both weapons are built with two fundamentally different design priorities (with tactics and combat doctrines to follow them) in mind.

The AK-47 was designed as a mini-machine gun first, rifle second. The M-16 was designed for the exact opposite. The M-16's lack of stopping power and penetration compared to the AK-47's caliber is contrasted by its lack of kickback and lighter design. Besides, in the following decades since both weapons have been introduced i'd definitely say the M-16 has won out in terms of its "room for development" and all the pimped out tech kits and customizations the US (and its allies) have produced for it.

[Typhoon]

Fudge, the only way Zerogouki pulls the lead is through varients and derivatives, if we move the goalposts for Kalashnikov's design then all the comments on accessories, weight, 5.56mm are rendered null. The Kalashnikov has aged just as well, if not better than the M-16 a point thats demonstrated by the phenominal amount of Kalashnikov varients, manufacturers and users around the world.

[War Angel]

Reliability, in certain situations, is more important than anything else. For the average American soldier, it means less than for the average Russian soldier. The former is often not stuck in shit, and if he is, not for long, and has a firm logistic back. The Russian soldier has two things - vodka and ammunition, and both must be compatible with his closest companion - his rifle.

Accuracy, weight etc., are more easily changed than reliability. You can make an AK with a longer barrel, better sights and lighter materials. It's harder to make an M-16 much more reliable without drastically changing the way its built, and thus no-longer being an M-16.

I'm not personally familiar with newer models of the AK-47, but newer M-16 are good, reliable tools of the kill. Better manufacturing standards, firmer construction and slight changes in design have made the M-4 ('Flat-tops' as they're known here) to be a good, reliable, versatile and effective weapon.

Personally, given time's change, I think the M-16's variants to be better than the AK-47 variants.

As for the calibre - 7.62x39mm is not better than the 5.56x45mm. The former weighs more and is less accurate. It may have more punch, but what good is that if it doesn't hit? Meanwhile, a precise hit with the 5.56 will lead to much suffering and death.

[Zerogouki]

Zerogouki is god.

Thanks. Can I egosig that?

the only way Zerogouki pulls the lead is through varients and derivatives

Not at all. If we took variants and derivatives into account, then I'd be dragging things like the HK416 and Saiga-12 into the discussion. But I'm not. I'm talking about the M16 alone and the AK-47 alone.

The Kalashnikov has aged just as well, if not better than the M-16

We're not talking about "the Kalashnikov". We're talking specifically about the 47.

a point thats demonstrated by the phenominal amount of Kalashnikov varients, manufacturers and users around the world

...most of which suck.

Accuracy, weight etc., are more easily changed than reliability. You can make an AK with a longer barrel, better sights and lighter materials.

Yes, and then it's no longer a 47.

It's harder to make an M-16 much more reliable without drastically changing the way its built

The HK416 says otherwise.

I'm not personally familiar with newer models of the AK-47

The AK-47 is a model. If you're talking about newer models of the AK family, the 107 and 108 are decent. The A-91 packs a mean punch. The Saiga-12 killed your father, raped your mother, stole your girlfriend, drank all of your booze, and pissed on the grave of your favorite childhood pet. The Vepr-12 participated in all of that, but also used your toothbrush and told your grandparents that you were gay, just to one-up the Saiga.

[Oxymoron]

AK just looks cool as fuck.

[War Angel]

Yes, and then it's no longer a 47.

Sure it is. The AK's greatness is its mechanism - and you can pack that however you want, even in bullpup.

The HK416 says otherwise.

That weapon looks like an M-4 (handle, receiver, etc.), but its innards are G-36, mainly the gas-operation bolt. It's a clearly superior weapon, if slightly heavier and more expensive.

The AK-47 is a model. If you're talking about newer models of the AK family, the 107 and 108 are decent. The A-91 packs a mean punch. The Saiga-12 killed your father, raped your mother, stole your girlfriend, drank all of your booze, and pissed on the grave of your favorite childhood pet. The Vepr-12 participated in all of that, but also used your toothbrush and told your grandparents that you were gay, just to one-up the Saiga.

Some of these are shotguns...

[Typhoon]

But I'm not. I'm talking about the M16 alone and the AK-47 alone.

Both the original AK-47 and M16 have been continually modified and adapted over the years as technology and experiance made its mark, as such the point raised seems more of a matter of national nomlenclature than design heritage. If we are being strict then why refer to M-16 varients like the XM16E1 and discount Ak-47 varients like the AKM? The AK-47 in later years itself fielded a wide range of accessories and improvements, even the AK-74 is essentially an incrimentally modified AKM which is comparable to the design changes the M-16 saw in the late 1970's.

[Quantum]

The AK-47 because it looks badass, especially when you're wearing paramilitary uniforms.

[Zerogouki]

Yes, and then it's no longer a 47.

Sure it is.

No, it's not. It's an AK other than a 47.

The AK's greatness is its mechanism - and you can pack that however you want, even in bullpup.

Yeah, so? That doesn't change the fact that the result is not a 47.

That weapon looks like an M-4 (handle, receiver, etc.), but its innards are G-36, mainly the gas-operation bolt.

The G36 was based on the AR-18, which was, in turn, based on the AR-15.

It's irrelevant, though, as this kit is another perfect example of how to "make an M-16 much more reliable without drastically changing the way its built".

Some of these are shotguns...

So? They still have Kalashnikov guts.

Both the original AK-47 and M16 have been continually modified and adapted over the years as technology and experiance made its mark, as such the point raised seems more of a matter of national nomlenclature than design heritage.

Yeah. So?

If we are being strict then why refer to M-16 varients like the XM16E1 and discount Ak-47 varients like the AKM?

Because the XM16E1 is still an M16, but the AKM is the AKM, not the AK-47.

The AK-47 in later years itself fielded a wide range of accessories and improvements

Like what?

even the AK-74 is essentially an incrimentally modified AKM which is comparable to the design changes the M-16 saw in the late 1970's.

The M16 did not switch over to a radically different caliber in the late 1970s, nor did its role change from "spray and pray" to "aim first, then fire". The difference between the AK-47 and AK-74 is more like that between the AR-10 and the AR-15, and nobody here is discussing the AR-10.

The AK-47 because it looks badass, especially when you're wearing paramilitary uniforms.

No wooden firearm can possibly look "badass". Perhaps you are thinking of the Tantal AK-74s...

[Typhoon]

Yeah. So?

To put it your way the XM16E1 is the XM16E1 not the M-16 and as such cannot be included within the remit discussion.

So either you have the unreliable M-16 vs the AK-47, or the M-16#### vs the AK-####, either way the Kalashnikov package wins out

Oh and the later model AK-47's could be equipped with silencers, grenade launchers and a range of sights. Both the M-16 and the AK-47 got new barrels in later varients, one to change the calibre for new ammunition and the other rifling for new ammunition.

[Zerogouki]

Umm... no. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

[War Angel]

Yeah, so? That doesn't change the fact that the result is not a 47.

Well, I consider it an AK-47, even if a little jumbled up.

Like this guy:

So? They still have Kalashnikov guts.

You and I have the same guts. Is our function the same?

Those are shotguns, not ARs.

but the AKM is the AKM, not the AK-47.

The AKM is an improved AK-47. The basics have remained the same, even the calibre.

No wooden firearm can possibly look "badass"

You sound so certain on matters of taste.

[Zerogouki]

Well, I consider it an AK-47

And you're wrong.

Like this guy:

The Vepr doesn't even use the same kind of ammo as the 47.

You and I have the same guts. Is our function the same?

We're both human...

Those are shotguns, not ARs.

I never said they were ARs.

The AKM is an improved AK-47. The basics have remained the same, even the calibre.

I could say the same about the M14 and the M1 Garand, but they're still not the same gun.

[War Angel]

And you're wrong.

Inconceivable.

The Vepr doesn't even use the same kind of ammo as the 47.

True. Same mechanism, though, if I be not mistaken. The Galil, too, has 7.62mm and 5.56 versions.

We're both human...

And these are all weapons.

I never said they were ARs.

You might as well have listed pistols and AT weapons.

I could say the same about the M14 and the M1 Garand, but they're still not the same gun.

The Garand is a semi-automatic rifle with an eight-shot clip. The M-14 is an assault rifle. They only share the calibre. The AK-47 and the AKM share mechanism, calibre and design. The AKM simply has certain improved characteristics, mostly in build and materials.

[Typhoon]

The AK-47 and the AKM share mechanism, calibre and design.

Ah but it hasnt got a 47 in the name so we have been banned from considering it War Angel. If it was the Ak-47M we would be ok....oh well.

My new nomination for AK-47 vs M-16 is the AK-47-TAR, not too sure about the mechanism but at least there will be no complaints about it not being a 47!

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7580/ak47tar.png

[Zerogouki]

True. Same mechanism, though, if I be not mistaken.

And you'd have a point if that mattered in the slightest. Look, you seem to be having some trouble with this concept, so I'm going to type it slowly, in all caps, so that you might understand:

THIS IS NOT THE "KALASHNIKOV MECHANISM VERSUS EUGENE STONER MECHANISM" THREAD. THIS IS THE FUCKING 47 VERSUS 16 THREAD. WEAPONS OTHER THAN THE 47 AND 16 ARE IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

Do you get it now?

You might as well have listed pistols and AT weapons.

I have yet to hear about Kalashnikov-based pistols and AT weapons.

The M-14 is an assault rifle.

Fail.

Everything else

Fail.

Ah but it hasnt got a 47 in the name so we have been banned from considering it

Exactly.

My new nomination for AK-47 vs M-16 is the AK-47-TAR, not too sure about the mechanism but at least there will be no complaints about it not being a 47!

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7580/ak47tar.png

WIN.

[War Angel]

And you'd have a point if that mattered in the slightest.

The AK doesn't have a lot going for it, but its reliability. This is due to a rugged and beautifully built mechanism.

THIS IS NOT THE "KALASHNIKOV MECHANISM VERSUS EUGENE STONER MECHANISM" THREAD. THIS IS THE FUCKING 47 VERSUS 16 THREAD. WEAPONS OTHER THAN THE 47 AND 16 ARE IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

Okay, so we're talking only AK-47 vs. the earliest versions of the M16, let's say, the M16A1.

In that case, the Kalachnikov wins by light-years. The M16A1 is a piece of shit that wouldn't fire even if asked really nicely and patted on the back. It's one of the most unreliable weapons I've had the displeasure of having to handle.

Or maybe you'd like to take into account newer, improved M-16 models? Maybe the M16A2, which only came around 1980? The AKM was already around in 1959, before even the first M16 was put into action.

Just because the Russians didn't want to call it AK-47A2, and instead called it AKM, doesn't mean it's that different. It's basically the same weapon, with some minor improvements.

Now, do you get it?

Fail.

Care to elaborate? It has all the characteristics of an AR. Not a very good AR (though it excels as a general use rifle, mostly for designated marksmen), but still an AR. Is the FN-FAL not an assault-rifle, either?

And your 'fail's may be at place in Gorkiy, but we're having a discussion here, so it would be wise to limit their use.

[Brio]

In that case, the Kalachnikov wins by light-years. The M16A1 is a piece of shit that wouldn't fire even if asked really nicely and patted on the back. It's one of the most unreliable weapons I've had the displeasure of having to handle.

QFT.

Care to elaborate? It has all the characteristics of an AR. Not a very good AR (though it excels as a general use rifle, mostly for designated marksmen), but still an AR. Is the FN-FAL not an assault-rifle, either?

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; although IMHO this is just splitting hairs.

[762]

I'd rather have Stoner's rifle, the M16/M4/AR15, because if I had it all I'd have to do to fix 70% of its problems is get rid of the direct impingement gas operating system for a gas piston. From then on all I see is the 'problem' of caliber - which is fixed with a swap to the bolt and barrel; which gives you .458 SOCOM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_impingement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.458_SOCOM
For those who don't know what I'm talking about. (yay wikipedia)

[War Angel]

I'd rather have Stoner's rifle, the M16/M4/AR15, because if I had it all I'd have to do to fix 70% of its problems is get rid of the direct impingement gas operating system for a gas piston. From then on all I see is the 'problem' of caliber - which is fixed with a swap to the bolt and barrel; which gives you .458 SOCOM.

... basically replacing the whole bloody thing.

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; although IMHO this is just splitting hairs.

Meh. If the person firing it is strong and heavy enough, they could probably handle it full-auto, too. It's fully-automatic and not chain-fed, so it's an AR by any definition.