AK-47 vs M-16. My Observations - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By ingliz
#13704843
I thought we were dicussing civilian semi-auto AK/M16 variants.

Burst.

And, as MB says, 3 shot selective fire is quite controllable, but why you would need it is beyond me as it is a stopping round.
Last edited by ingliz on 08 May 2011 22:25, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#13704845
I just don't see the point doing yet another 16 vs 47 contest because it's apples and oranges.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13704847
They are, but in semi auto at close range (100 metres) the AK wins hands down
User avatar
By Suska
#13704854
A good hunting rifle in the right hands can knock a whole squad out of action, and you need a squad to use assault rifles correctly.
User avatar
By MB.
#13704856
:?:
User avatar
By Suska
#13704857
I'm sorry MB, go back to shooting at targets.
User avatar
By MB.
#13704859
I've never fired a gun.
User avatar
By Suska
#13704861
It seemed to me that I confused you. I apologize again, go back to, whatever...
User avatar
By MB.
#13704865
A good hunting rifle in the right hands can knock a whole squad out of action, and you need a squad to use assault rifles correctly.


There are two parts that make no sense: the first is the idea someone armed with a semi-automatic magazine or clip fed hunting rifle couild execute a 10 man squad armed with grenade launchers, machine guns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, and rocket launchers, before in turn being killed is unlikely. Secondly, the notion that assault rifles are not actaully individual combat weapons is ludicrous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
User avatar
By Suska
#13704871
Depends a lot on terrain and the combatants knowledge of it. We weren't discussing sniper rifles so I mentioned them. If you have a properly equipped squad you'll have one. On the other hand, the way this thread has gone the suggestion seemed to be that assault rifles are the Excalibur. I don't find it manly, so much as pragmatic in a war zone, just like nuclear bombs. Assault rifles are built to suppress and flank, you can't flank without a squad. But if you're going for manly you don't need anything fancy beyond range, accuracy and bullets in your pocket.
User avatar
By MB.
#13704875
Assault rifles are built to suppress and flank, you can't flank without a squad


Assault rifles can suppress, and it only takes one man to do it. So in theory a two man squad (or three man fireteam) should be the optimum model for assault rifle sub-squad organization. And it is. Also, AR's aren't as 'manly' as BRs. It seems to me like yet again you're making an argument based on aesthetics, not logic. There is a reason the AR is the basic infantry weapon. It really is the best weapon for the individual soldier. All attempts that have been made to radically divert from this principle have been failures. Effectively what happened, historically, is that the machine gun defeated the rifle. Now everyone has machine guns. So the real question is, in a thread about two types of machine guns you come in and pronounce rifles to be superior. When asked why, your response is because of their innate manly virtue. Sure, 303 lee enfields were probably the finest infantry weapons for fifty years, but now they aren't. So... why are you even in this thread?
User avatar
By Suska
#13704880
We're mostly civilians here, you're talking about organized war. If people here are practicing to be soldiers I find it a bit silly, even sillier to practice a weapon (or go on about its features) without practicing things like cardio, tactics and communications. It's just another form of little people with big trucks with clean beds. Learn to use a pistol and leave it at that (don't treat the fact that they are used for killing people lightly), or if you're like me and you live in the woods, learn to use a rifle and hunt with it. The rest is posturing.
User avatar
By MB.
#13704886
or if you're like me and you live in the woods, learn to use a rifle and hunt with it.

Bow > rifle for manly factor at hunting. Sorry.

Also hunting is for horrible people.

I find it a bit silly, even sillier to practice a weapon (or go on about its features) without practicing things like cardio, tactics and communications.


Critique Demosthenes then. I'm just providing my input. I'm not an expert in this matter by any means.
User avatar
By MB.
#13704890
Yah except we're not comparing operators.
User avatar
By Suska
#13704891
hunting is for horrible people.
Hunting is for a year's worth of cheap meat.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13704892
I am getting confused.

From the OP:

AK-47 vs M-16.


Both of these are the civilian single-fire semi-auto versions.

We discussed AK semi-autos chambered in something other than 7.62x39.

I know I touched on the 7.62 Nato in a battle rifle.

And the 3 burst fire of say a SIG716 popped up.

But I am sure we are not supposed to be discussing assault rifles.

Both are completely legal to own in my state and were purchased completely legally.

Semi autos are legal, assault weapons are not.

:?:
Last edited by ingliz on 08 May 2011 23:22, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#13704898
Disclaimer?
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#13705122
They are, but in semi auto at close range (100 metres) the AK wins hands down


This is exactly what I was saying Furthermore, the point of this thread was experience from those who've actually fired a live round or two. I can copy and paste articles with the best of them and cite all sorts of stats and other bullshit. I KNOW about the new US 6.8mm round. I know blah, blah, blah. I know squad based tactics and automatic fire. I'm not trying to rehash any previous battles in terms of absolutely the best version of either of these weapons nor anything else.

With the exception of MB's input, which is at least educated and was to the point, I DON'T CARE about the rest.

As I said, I've got two civvie weapons: An M-16 (A2 as MB has surmised, and a Bulgarian AK-47. Both are perfectly legal in the states, and are semi-auto.

Stuff like this:

Zerogouki wrote:Too much recoil to be used at full auto without a bi/tripod.


and this:

Suska wrote:A good hunting rifle in the right hands can knock a whole squad out of action, and you need a squad to use assault rifles correctly.


Are not helping in the slightest.

ingliz wrote:I thought we were discussing civilian semi-auto AK/M16 variants.


Thanks dude, I was trying too. :|
User avatar
By ingliz
#13705320
They are, but in semi auto at close range (100 metres) the AK wins hands down

I forget to add "with a decent sight on the siderail".

Not be to offensive but... Don't fight somethin[…]

The HK protest has a good analogy though for commu[…]

.... What does the BBC do that is Zionist? What’[…]

It's already turned into a retarded inquisition s[…]