AK-47 Type I vs. Colt M16A1

[quattro_20v]

Hmm, The Colt C7, modiefied version of m16, at 100m it easily goes tru a 2mm metal and even after that u see the sand coming up in the hills behind the targets on the shootingrange

[Matra et Alpine]

My info on the SA-80 is from mate - currently in Iraq and I've not heard if he's moving North to "save the US' butt".

j/k You have to find humour in that situation

Anyway, he was involved in the first foray with the SA-80 and he called it a POS. It was REALLY unreliable and the slightest knock on the mag and you couldn't reload under fire. It was a disaster !! He reckons the 02 version is so much better and is ideal in close combat and urban ( he has NI experience of what being a sqaddie on streets is like ) They've got the new mods for the firing pic impremevment too. They're not yomping but it was one of the BIG things he hated the gun for. On a full pack yomp he said the gun had bits that stuck in your ribs and were annoying

British Army run 4 man squads with different variants of the gun for each man. Same core ammo, but diffrennt muzzle length/velocities, stocks and fire rates to provide suppression AND accuracy from the squad when necessary.

IIRC the SA-80 is due for retirement in 5 years and it was the H-K G35 that theye were hearing was being considered.

[Matra et Alpine]

Hmm, The Colt C7, modiefied version of m16, at 100m it easily goes tru a 2mm metal and even after that u see the sand coming up in the hills behind the targets on the shootingrange

That is the point made earlier.

in reality you want a bullet capable of dissipating ALL of its energy INSIDE a body if possible. So punching 2mm metal and still hitting a small area behind is likely to produce a clean hole through a softer flesh target. That requires an accurate hit on a major organ to put an opponent down.

On a battlefield it used to be considered better to damage and disable an opponent rather than perfect clean hit. A disabled soldier will require the enemy to call up resources to recover and provide medical support. All resources taking active soldiers out of the action. With modern 'terrorist' actions I wonder if that thinking is appropriate

[more-boost1555]

i said m16 but i think both could stop a person just as good as the other. while i am in support for guns in general, the whole argument over assault rifles is stupid. what other purpos do they serve other than for criminals to attack with? are they acutally for today's modern super-predators? do you really need to unload a dozen buillets when your deer hunting? hmmm...

obviously they were designed to kill human beings, but why is it that you immediately put them into the hands of criminals as opposed to a law abiding citizen defending them selves? Guns are tools, and they were not made merely for hunting. Guns are the great equalizer, they give weaker individuals a way to defend them selves from those who would do them harm. To say they are only used for right or wrong is ignorant. They are merely tools in the hands of their operators.

Assault rifles are no different, to say noone needs them because they are designed to kill is moronic. The very fact they they are available to people is a deterrent to tyrants and oppressive government, along with your run of the mill violent criminals. Obviously they can also be used for evil, that is the cost of freedom. I am willing to accept that cost, you may not be. Just try and consider all the facts, that's all.

Sorry if this post came off as angry or confrontational. Just trying to state my opinion, and I respect yours as well even if I don't agree with it.

[more-boost1555]

now what about the IMI Tavor 9mm vs. the TAR 21? 2 less popular assault rifles, but mostly because they are more expensive. they are both bullpup configured (meaning rounds are fed into the barrell from the very back) for added barrell length, and to make it easier to control the recoil. both are very accurate, capable of single shot, and full auto, same size vlip (but the tavor has a 9mm ar round, while the tar-21 has i think 5.56.....). both are compact, fire 10 rounds a second (about) and are more accurate then the m16. (i love ghost recon mods+gun mod info forums)

both made by IMI, both bullpup, both based off the same design. The 9mm was designed as a cqb weapon for special forces, and really should not even be classified as an assault rifle because it fires pistol caliber ammo.

Both ae great guns for their respective purposes, I love IMI my self, a lot of great weapons have come from them. These are just the latest additions.

[more-boost1555]

I despise CSers and their lack of knowledge about real life.Ok first of all, 7.62 millimeters is 0.3 inches, not 0.308. Secondly, the accuracy is not really a problem (I will explain later on) and the extra weight is a personal opinion as to whether it is a problem or not. Note that we're talking about the M16A1 with the M193 0.223 remington, not the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and the AK-47 Type I not the AK-74 or the AKM.

Ok, now for the problem of the M192 0.223 Remington vs the 7.62 M43 rounds. While the M16 IS more accurate than the AK-47, it's extra accuracy is useless at distances over 150 meters. Most of it's velocity is lost because of friction to the air and the lightness of the bullet. Tests have shown that muscle tissue shot by the M192 round will still function if the bullet penetrated perpendicularly. The M43 Soviet round however, is not as accurate as the Remington round, but it is still useful over 200 meters and still useful after it's accuracy has been lost. The round tumbles inside the body, and changes direction on impact, causing severe muscle tissue destruction.

AK-47s have an effective range of 200-300 meters, while the M16's effective range is no more than 150 meters due to it's ammunition. Unless you have really good aim and can garuntee headshots with the M16 everytime you shoot, the AK47 is the better choice. While it is not based on a target rifle (like the M16) it does what it was intended to do: kill people. Even though not as accurate, it is accurate enough to do the job against enemies 200-300 meters away.

NOTE: OTHER VERSIONS OF AK-47s HAVE CRAPPY ACCURACY, ONLY THE TYPE I IS DEADLY

I was off by .008 of an inch, really I was just giving calibers so people could see comparible rounds. The only round I'm aware of that measures out to .300 is winchester magnum, and that is more of a specialty/hunting round.

Accuracy is not really a problem (with profficient shooters) I agree, the diffrences I'm sure are minimal. The 7.62mm round does offer greater range and tissue damage as well. However you can not deny the fact that the smaller 5.56mm round is much easier to learn to shoot with, and accurately at that. It's recoil is miniscule, and also allows for more control in full auto.

One thing I definately dissagree with is how you try to make weight into a non isssue. It is a major issue when you are talking about a weapon being standard infantry issue. You can carry a hell of a lot more ammo in 5.56 than 7.62 if you give them equal weight. For example, lets say ten pounds of ammo, obviously you are going to have more of the smaller 5.56 than the 7.62. Lighter rounds allow a soldier, who is allready burdened by a crap load of tools/equipment, to carry more ammo. This is a significant advantage.

In the end it all depends on the situation like I said. In urban combat or on open plains I'll take the M-16 cause of it's light weight and accuracy/low recoil. If we're talking desert, jungle or some other corrosive hostile environment I'd prefer the simplicity/reliability of the AK.

Really if you asked me to choose from any rifle in the world, neither of these would be my first choice. Both are great weapons though, with there own strengths and weaknesses.

[more-boost1555]

That is the point made earlier.

in reality you want a bullet capable of dissipating ALL of its energy INSIDE a body if possible. So punching 2mm metal and still hitting a small area behind is likely to produce a clean hole through a softer flesh target. That requires an accurate hit on a major organ to put an opponent down.

On a battlefield it used to be considered better to damage and disable an opponent rather than perfect clean hit. A disabled soldier will require the enemy to call up resources to recover and provide medical support. All resources taking active soldiers out of the action. With modern 'terrorist' actions I wonder if that thinking is appropriate

or fortunately depending on how you look at it. The geneva convention prevents the use of hollowpoints/dum dums, which splatter on impact and create massive tissue damage. Too inhumane I suppose. So regular old "ball" ammo, or armor piercing rounds are used. So of course they will not allways have the desired effect. On the same point neither would hollowpoints allways be the best choice. Sometimes you need a round to punch through armor, like the teflon coated rounds crisis was talking about.

[UK CARS]

Ive held an Ak before, very light, and the trigger is easy to find.

[DasModell]

blah . i don't care wich guns are better i look for design. my favorite . belgian Fn-Fal ..

[d-quik]

^^^^^now THAT is a heavy rifle, with heavy bullets

Hmm, The Colt C7, modiefied version of m16, at 100m it easily goes tru a 2mm metal and even after that u see the sand coming up in the hills behind the targets on the shootingrange

Yeah, like Matra said this isn't really a good point, you want the bullet to stay inside the body not go through it.

One thing I definately dissagree with is how you try to make weight into a non isssue. It is a major issue when you are talking about a weapon being standard infantry issue. You can carry a hell of a lot more ammo in 5.56 than 7.62 if you give them equal weight. For example, lets say ten pounds of ammo, obviously you are going to have more of the smaller 5.56 than the 7.62. Lighter rounds allow a soldier, who is allready burdened by a crap load of tools/equipment, to carry more ammo. This is a significant advantage.

Well I guess that is your opinion, but when it comes to be I guns that are heavier and more durable. In fact, my favourite gun right now is the all-steel version of the CZ-75. Though heavy, it is durable. The extra weight is not really a problem. As for carrying more 5.56mm rounds, I have to disagree. One of the main reasons the M43 soviet round is so popular is because people can carry a lot of it. Sure you can't carry as much as 5.56mm rounds, but it is still a lot. This is why weight is not that big of a deal in my opinion.

[NAZCA C2]

If you want a rifle that will get the job done then just get a M14. The M14 was the standard issue weapon for US forces before the M16.

[jcp123]

Well since we're on the subject of other guns in general, all I really want is a .357 Mag, 3" barrel, full barrel underlug, unfluted cylinder, with stainless finish and black combat grips.

Then I'd take a Remington 700 with black poly furniture/stainless barrel and action, chambered for .30-06 (or I wish I could get .300 Weatherby Mag. Maybe you can, I don't remember).

For hard combat, I'll still take an AK, or perhaps an HK53 if it's more close-quarters.

[henk4]

disgusting thread, if I had the power I would have removed it.

[jcp123]

Relax, they're just guns. Great stress relievers at the range. I don't think any of us here would just go around and start murdering everyone in sight.

[Matra et Alpine]

Relax, they're just guns. Great stress relievers at the range. I don't think any of us here would just go around and start murdering everyone in sight.

oh I don't know .....


I've got my ranked list of UCP members handy