- milla da killa
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Posted by: milla da killa
Posted by: Koolen
m16 proven worthy in battles and wars? Have you ever shot with one? Have you ever operated one in (simulated) combat? They jam the whole time and are pretty much useless with even a slight amount of sand in the valve. I consider them more accurate then the AK-47 but that's about it.
That's bull-blam!-. The M-16/M-4 is extremely proven in battle. It's low recoil aids in quick sight picture adjustment, to allow more rounds accurately to go down range, along with using the 5.56x45mm and a 1/7 r/ht barrel which gives it accuracy up to 600m. Not to mention they hardly jam unless you're doing training with blanks (who's sole purpose is to jam that thing).
I had the same M-4 for ~3 years, you know how many times it jammed? Twice. That's after putting hundreds and hundreds of rounds through it. Proper care and maintenance are key with it. The only two times it did jam were because I had to hand it off to someone else, and when I got it back they didn't clean it.
As for my actual answer.
I'ld take an M-4 anyday over the AK-47. After handling both, and seeing both used in combat by equally trained soldiers, the M-16 series has always been the victor. The fact is the AK vs. AR debate is no different than the 9mm vs. .45 debate.
The .45 side says, "well mine has more knockdown power!" and the 9mm says "I have more ammo!" but what nobody seems to ever know about, or factor in is COMBAT ABILITY. Seriously, it's so overlooked it's ridiculous. A .45 in combat is less useful than a 9mm, just as an AK is less useful than an AR.
The fact, quite simply, is during a gun fight your first instinct is to simply make a louder bang, and more bangs than the other person. This inevaditably results in you emptying your entire first mag in the shortest time possible. For an M-4, that typically sits around 45 seconds (on semi). The big thing to overcome that is training, and training isn't something most people possess.
Then the issue becomes reload time, figuring you're under stress that's a feat. Especially reloading the AK which under stress takes twice as long as the M-16 series, even with equal training on both weapon systems. This is because of the M-16's simple slip up method, compared to the AK's angled way (hard to explain, those who've used both know what I'm saying).
The final issue once you get past that intial surge of adrenaline is to kill your opponent before they kill you (figuring you didn't kill them already). This is done by efficient, well aimed rounds, which in no doubt goes again to the M-16 series. The AK, sadly, barely meets the minimum requirements of the modern battlefield.
The majority of modern firefights occur from 100-500m, and often extend even past that. To put into perspective the ranges involved, hold your hand in front of your face and look at your pinky, then look at your nail. That's roughly how tall someone is at 400m. For an M-16 that's no big deal, but for an AK-47 who's max effective range sits around 300m, that's a toughy, especially while under fire.
The only real thing the AK has over the M-16 is "stopping power" which isn't as big of a deal as you may believe. As an experiment for yourself, go to your head, hit him in the chest with your fist. It'll probably knock him back a bit, but not much else. Now take your pointer finger, and slam it's knuckle into him 10 times as fast as you can. Chances are he's on the ground writhing in pain.
The reason that works is because an AK's accuracy greatly affects it, and in combat it will typically be used with the full automatic mode engaged. Even with the single fire on, going off that rule I stated before, you'll be disregarding aimed shots and try to match every time he shoots, since it takes longer to reaquire your target with a larger caliber weapon such as the AK, you'll never match him.
The AK might get lucky and get a hit in, and while it'll do some damage, it still won't match the same damage a M-16 can do in the same time. In the time 1 round will hit vitals wih the AK, 5-6 accurate rounds can be put in the vitals with an M-16 (tested this, actually). This means more holes, more gore, more death. Not to mention that the modern rounds used actually transfer MORE energy through a 5.56 than a 7.62.
The fact is, while the AK is a long lasting weapon, it's one only good for small countries until it's entirely re-worked. There are some very good variants of it out there (such as the Polish Beryl) but as the standard AK design is the biggest one out there, it can't compare to the M-16.
-Max Eff Range of AK - 300m, M-16-500m
7.62x39mm (AK) Facts
Energy (Muzzle) - 1,525 ft/lbs
@100m - 1,200
@200m - 915
@300m - 690
@400m - 515
@500m - 395
@600m - 280
5.56x45mm (AR) Facts
Energy (Muzzle) - 1,250 ft/lbs
@100m - 970
@200m - 735
@300m - 550
@400m - 405
@500m - 290
@600m - 172
tl;dr - M-16 wins, read facts below.
Quoting this just because of the amount of information it does have in it so it isn't looked over so to add it to the debate. Sorry for double posting, but I feel this is one of those times where it could be considered acceptable.