which is better Ak47 vs M16???

[fuckallatheists]

Which do u think is better the m16(a4 not the a1-2 vietnam kind) or the ak 47????

a-m16

b-ak47

c-don't care much about guns

me i will say the M16 is better caz its awesome and has better firepower, and is just cool

[benjadaninja]

A hundred pounds of bricks, or a hundred pounds of feathers?

[ripoffhitman]

C, I own you all.

But between the 2, Ak47

[Mizar]

AK-47 gives you reliability, while M16 gives you accuracy and stopping power.

it's a toss up.

[Rosenrot-I]

At 2/18/08 11:38 PM, fuckallatheists wrote: M16 has better firepower

No it doesn't. The AK is waterprooft, mud-proof, sand proof and tank proof. It can be run over by a tank and function properly. It has better range and power.

in b4 cellardoor6 proves me wrong

[Noodleboy111]

Guns are stupid, if you can't kill someone with your bare hands you shouldn't be able to kill anyone at all.

[Electric-Bla]

At 2/18/08 11:42 PM, Rosenrot-I wrote: it has better range and power.

Well range yes, but the accuracy is bad enough that the M16 would have a larger accurate range.
I do agree with you, I'd rather have an AK-47 than the M16... But the C-7 is better than both :P

in b4 cellardoor6 proves me wrong

No, he'll just say that you're brainwashed.

[zone12]

m16 look face it Ak realy sucks sure its waterproof and other stuff but think about it, firepower over ac stuff proof over power.l

[UMREE]

At 2/18/08 11:44 PM, Noodleboy111 wrote: Guns are stupid, if you can't kill someone with your bare hands you shouldn't be able to kill anyone at all.

this coming from a guy with a cop holding gun for a signature pic

my vote, Kalashnikov all the way! wooo

[Icecry0]

AK-47 for obvious reasons. It's extremely durable but has bad recoil I heard.

M-16 is yeah accurate but pft drop it in the water and all you can do with it is throw it at someone.

[Rosenrot-I]

At 2/18/08 11:46 PM, Electric-Bla wrote: Well range yes, but the accuracy is bad enough that the M16 would have a larger accurate range.
I do agree with you, I'd rather have an AK-47 than the M16... But the C-7 is better than both :P

Yea true, I just did a bit of reading and the m16 does have the range. Ak47 is just more badass. And it can be run over by a fucking tank.

[aquaticmole]

At 2/18/08 11:47 PM, UMREE wrote:

At 2/18/08 11:44 PM, Noodleboy111 wrote: Guns are stupid, if you can't kill someone with your bare hands you shouldn't be able to kill anyone at all.

this coming from a guy with a cop holding gun for a signature pic

you mean a sniper about to get brutally back stabbed by a spy right? Learn good games.

[major-shake]

At 2/18/08 11:41 PM, Mizar wrote: AK-47 gives you reliability, while M16 gives you accuracy and stopping power.

it's a toss up.

Actually the ak47 gives you both more accuracy and stopping power, and I will explain how.

The AK uses a bigger bullet, that is where you get the stopping power from. However since it does not use plastic for the stock, it is a heavier gun, when you have a heavier gun you have less muzzle jump, thus increasing accuracy.

[UMREE]

At 2/18/08 11:49 PM, aquaticmole wrote:

this coming from a guy with a cop holding gun for a signature pic

you mean a sniper about to get brutally back stabbed by a spy right? Learn good games.

well excuse me

[ghostface619]

the two has been tested on discovery channel

M16 + accuracy, range
AK47 + power, durability

[major-shake]

I forgot to add something to the end of my last post.

It has better accuracy under sustained automatic fire. You have to fire shorter bursts with the M16 than you do with the AK47.

[Ptcfast]

Neither, you're dead either way

[Electric-Bla]

At 2/18/08 11:49 PM, major-shake wrote: However since it does not use plastic for the stock, it is a heavier gun, when you have a heavier gun you have less muzzle jump, thus increasing accuracy.

It's still less accurate than the M16 overall. And the sizes are actually relatively the same, the M16 has a thinner, but longer round and the AK a shorter but thicker round.

Oh, and to the shorter bursts thing, most US M16 are only burst firing, those damned Americans literally don't know how to control themselves enough to fire properly with full auto... UNLIKE THE C-7!!! :D

Still though, AK-47 > M16

[DragTheWater]

At 2/18/08 11:47 PM, Icecry0 wrote: AK-47 for obvious reasons. It's extremely durable but has bad recoil I heard.

M-16 is yeah accurate but pft drop it in the water and all you can do with it is throw it at someone.

m-16s dont jam as easily as you think. i doubt you have one unless you really like guns. the ak isnt a bad weapon but the thing can be wildly inaccurate. the m-16 is accurate from a good way away.

so yeah u can ury it and it still fire ut but when all you do is spray and pray it's limitations show through

[McPaper]

The ak47 is an outdated weapon compared to present day western weaponry. If we were to look back at the vietnam war though you could say that the ak47 dominated the m16 because of its suitability to the environment.

On a world stage the ak47 has had greater influence then the m16 rifle therefor you could argue it is more effective then its western counter part.

[DigDugz]

M4, suck one.

[Skarien]

The only reason some you dumbasses have the little knowledge of firearms you do is because of COD4, if that game didnt exist you dumb fucks wouldn't know shit about anything.

[Electric-Bla]

At 2/19/08 12:39 AM, DigDugz wrote: M4, suck one.

C-7, suck another one.

Threesome?

[Preternatural]

I'm a scout man.

[Thesuit11]

At 2/19/08 12:41 AM, Electric-Bla wrote:

At 2/19/08 12:39 AM, DigDugz wrote: M4, suck one.

C-7, suck another one.

Threesome?

SUCK IT BITCH.

Foursome?

[TehHood]

At 2/19/08 12:48 AM, Thesuit11 wrote:

At 2/19/08 12:41 AM, Electric-Bla wrote:

At 2/19/08 12:39 AM, DigDugz wrote: M4, suck one.

C-7, suck another one.

Threesome?

SUCK IT BITCH.

Foursome?

Accuracy International Arctic Warfare Suck this!

Fivesome?

[cellardoor6]

I'm quite surprised at how stupid people actually are. They don't know shit about what they are saying, but they say it anyway.

At 2/18/08 11:42 PM, Rosenrot-I wrote:

At 2/18/08 11:38 PM, fuckallatheists wrote: M16 has better firepower

No it doesn't. The AK is waterprooft, mud-proof, sand proof and tank proof. It can be run over by a tank and function properly. It has better range and power.

The AK-47 is only a bit more reliable than the modern AR-15 (M4/M16), but it has NO WHERE NEAR the same amount of range, and its "power" is only a bit higher, but that doesn't necessarily mean more stopping power. It has a larger projectile, but it is at a much lower velocity, with a lower ballistic coefficient (which means it loses its velocity more quickly).

At 2/18/08 11:46 PM, Electric-Bla wrote:

At 2/18/08 11:42 PM, Rosenrot-I wrote: it has better range and power.

Well range yes

Wow, no it doesn't.

Where the hell are you idiots getting this from? Video games?

I do agree with you, I'd rather have an AK-47 than the M16... But the C-7 is better than both :P

You idiot, the C-7 is basically identical. It is an M-16 clone, with basically just a few ergonomic differences and the addition of an integrated scope.

in b4 cellardoor6 proves me wrong

No, he'll just say that you're brainwashed.

Well YOU are brainwashed.

Look you mindless little children.

AK-47

Cartridge: 7.62x39mm

Typical velocity: 2300-2400fps (feet/second)

Typical muzzle energy: 1500 ft/lbs

Typical ballistics (approx):

100yds: +3.5 inches (sighted that high because of how quickly the bullet drops)
300yds: -14.5 inches (that's almost 15 inches low)
400yds: -43 inches
500yds: 95 inches...

The AK-47 also has a very high MOA, which is bad. MOA is minute-of-arc, which determines how much a bullet will deviate from its flight path. 1 MOA is about 1 inch at 100yds, 2 at 200, 3 at 300 etc.. If you shoot a 3 MOA rifle, you'll have about a 3 inch group at 100 yds, 6 at 200, 9 at 300 ec..

Beyond about 300yds, you will not reliably hit a person-sized target you aim at with an AK-47 because the typical AK-47 only has an MOA of about 5 or 6... that means they have about a 15-18 inch group at 300yds.

AR-15 (M4/M16)

Catridge: 5.56x45 NATO (or .223 Remington in the US civilian market)

Typical velocity: 3000fps (varies widely considering there are all sorts of different bullets available)

Typical muzzle energy: 1200 ft/lbs ( it has a bit less energy, but its bullet structure causes more serious wounds within combat ranges because it fragments on impact with soft human tissue)

Typical ballistics:

100yds: +1.5 inches
300yds: -7.0 inches
400yds: -21.0 inches
500yds: -50 inches

AR-15 rifles are frequently capable of 1 MOA accuracy, meaning a typical 1 inch group at 100yds, 2 at 200, 3 at 300 etc..

Even relative inaccurate (for an AR-15) rifles with 2-3 MOA can reliably hit man sized targets out to about 400yds. But get an accurized one, and you can hit a man-sized target reliably out to 1000yds with proper sight adjustment.

[cherries]

Holy shit can you learn how to spell, and construct coherent sentences?

[cellardoor6]

Facts:

- The AR-15 (M4/M16) is more accurate, and has longer range.
- The AK-47 is more reliable (but not by that much anymore)
- The AK-47 shoots a projectile with a bit more energy, but it loses energy more quickly, contributing to its inaccuracy.

- The only countries in the world that still use the AK-47 and its 7.62x39 round are third-world countries.
- All advanced countries in the world with well-funded militaries use AR-15 (M4/M16) rifles, or use rifles that shoot the same round that was developed for the AR-15 (M4/M16).
- Even the Russians themselves have adopted a newer rifle (AK-74) that shoots a round designed to mimic the effectiveness of the 5.56x45mm round the AR-15 (M4/M16) rifle uses. The Russians saw how inferior the 7.62x39 round is, so they created the 5.45x39mm.

[SardonicSamurai]

At 2/18/08 11:39 PM, benjadaninja wrote: A hundred pounds of bricks, or a hundred pounds of feathers?

It all depends really.

I'm going to assume it is to be dropped on someone for this example. If the bricks and feathers were put in separate boxes, then I'd choose either or.

If they weren't, however, dropping the bricks would fall and hit harder then the feathers, due to the wind picking each individual feather up and making them float with the breeze.

8D