AK-47 vs M16


PDA






hatterasurf
May 11, 2006, 01:42 PM
Which one would you pick if you had to go into battle and why?

If you enjoyed reading about "AK-47 vs M16" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MTMilitiaman
May 11, 2006, 01:45 PM
Eh...it never ends...

Crosshair
May 11, 2006, 01:47 PM
*sigh* Here we go again. I would personaly use my Saiga AK assuming it was not an urban fight. My Saiga is setup as a marksman rifle for longer shots. 300 yard shots are easy and I could go farther if I had a longer range.

http://gra.midco.net/5937/GunPhotos/BAW_Saiga_Small.jpg

Correia
May 11, 2006, 01:51 PM
Please go use the search function. This topic has been covered several hundred times.

444
May 11, 2006, 01:52 PM
.......in the last week.

kfranz
May 11, 2006, 01:54 PM
I'd take the 9mm, 'cause it kicks butt over the .45. Or was that the other way around? I don't know..... :rolleyes:

Brian Williams
May 11, 2006, 01:54 PM
both and neither

Thin Black Line
May 11, 2006, 02:04 PM
Eh...it never ends...

Until I get shot by one.

Correia
May 11, 2006, 02:11 PM
And then I would probably get shot by a Kel-Tec, and that would just screw up everybody.

gopguy
May 11, 2006, 02:24 PM
Neither........FAL 7.62 NATO, would be my first choice for most situations.

Freddymac
May 11, 2006, 02:31 PM
Since I'm not military, and any "battle" that i was in would most likely be the north eastern US, hand me that M16.

mbs357
May 11, 2006, 02:36 PM
http://img343.imageshack.us/img343/5436/banana3007ar.jpg

kid_couteau
May 11, 2006, 02:39 PM
As I do not believe in killing my fellow man [or woman] I would choose neither.

I would grab my 22 rifle and be out foraging for food :)

See ya
Kid

KaceCoyote
May 11, 2006, 03:00 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Kacecoyote/stop.jpg

KaceCoyote
May 11, 2006, 03:06 PM
In case my point didnt get across..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Kacecoyote/fail.gif

pcf
May 11, 2006, 03:16 PM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-1/574869/prc-117.jpg

Because.....

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-1/574869/motivator_artyparty.jpg

chopinbloc
May 11, 2006, 05:10 PM
1. you should be gentle with new people; it isn't very "highroad" to berate them.

2. if you don't like the thread don't read it.

3. i happen to like reading these types of thread even if they are a bit repetitive.

as for the op: M16 is fine for me.

kid_couteau
May 11, 2006, 05:42 PM
Hi All

I love these types of threads
Get to see the different points of view on different gear.

Used to have an AK and liked it now I have an AR and I like that

Getting real fond of my mini 14 tho

See ya
Kid

AnthonyRSS
May 11, 2006, 05:43 PM
But you have to like the pictures.

kid_couteau
May 11, 2006, 05:47 PM
Only pic I see is of bannaman

I am at work right now and the firewall stops many such things

Why should I be offended?:what:

Oh well I guess I will find out when I get home

Kid

Don't Tread On Me
May 11, 2006, 05:59 PM
I'd take the AK, even though I own AR's that have been perfectly reliable for hundreds of rounds even uncleaned.

"Battle" I assume is war. War is dirty. Rather have an AK. I'm assuming I have full auto choices in each? In battle, spray wins and there's little care for collateral damage. All the combat video I've seen (AK or AR) shows people hammering away full auto at the approximate position of the enemy. It is rare to see well-aimed fire at specific targets.

Battles and wars can drag out for days. Not a lot of time or energy to clean. In a battle, it is safe to assume it will be outdoors, possibly in sandy, muddy, or frozen regions. There's a good chance you'd have to crawl through whatever is on the ground...


For SHTF/Defense, I prefer the AR. Say there is mass looting or rioting, I need speed and accuracy. Being home, there's no full auto option - so in semi the AR I think is better. At home, I can keep the rifle spotless clean and well maintained. Even if I had to bug out, there's really no situation in the South East, even under SHTF conditions, that would render the AR useless due to environmental conditions. If anything, it is well suited for the wet humid climate. Also, in a domestic situation, I have the time (most likely) to arm myself with a sidearm. That's a good idea no matter what rifle you have.


Reliability when extremely filthy is an advantage of the AK that isn't really a practical advantage for 99% of the people living in the United States. Having a rifle that can survive being buried in sand or mud isn't that useful due to the fact that a situation like that is far less likely than the already extremely rare situation of even having to ever use a rifle like that in a SHTF.


There's just not enough filth in a domestic situation to make that aspect of the AK a serious factor. If you have your AK at home, sitting in the safe or closet, then there is no reason why you shouldn't field strip it, totally clean it spotless, and oil it well. When or IF that rifle ever needs to go into action, it will do so clean, just like an AR. Say you have a battle pack, and your load out is 180-210 rounds. Both the AR and AK can shoot through all of that without a single stoppage. 2,000rd uncleaned "torture tests" really prove nothing, unless you plan on being in a SHTF where you can't clean your rifle for 2,000 fired rounds. I doubt you'd carry that much, and if you were shooting it out from home and needed that many rounds, it means you were up against the military or an entire LE dept - in which case you'll be dead.

MechAg94
May 11, 2006, 06:05 PM
I have both so it depends on my mood at the time or which one is first in the safe.

Don't Tread On Me
May 11, 2006, 06:21 PM
Ah, the place of honor in the safe!

kid_couteau
May 11, 2006, 07:20 PM
Home now. No firewalls here

I seriously hope that those pictures are not meant toward me.
Because if they are simply because I do not believe in killing another human being then you have a problem sir.

Just my feelings and opinion. I dont knock yours I expect the same from you.

Kid

Matt King
May 11, 2006, 07:34 PM
Welcome to THR. Run a search on either M-16, or ak-47, and you will get hundred's of hits.

Preacherman
May 11, 2006, 07:47 PM
Folks, for heaven's sake, run a Search on topics like this before posting yet another thread on something that's been done to death!!!

:fire: :cuss: :banghead:

dev_null
May 11, 2006, 08:45 PM
Anyway, the correct answer is "FAL." :neener:

proud2deviate
May 11, 2006, 08:49 PM
Everybody knows that the .45 ACP used in the AK is vastly superior to the 9mm used in the M16. In any case, you could find me blasting away with my Deagle, 'cause teh .50 BFG pwns ALL!

:rolleyes:

AJAX22
May 11, 2006, 09:35 PM
don't want to beat up on you for draging the dead horse out again, but the short answer is the right rifle is the one in your hands.

buy an ak if you can while you save up for an ar, then you have options, and options are a good thing

444
May 11, 2006, 09:41 PM
YOU are the weapon.
The rifle is only a tool.

The Real Hawkeye
May 11, 2006, 10:43 PM
Which one would you pick if you had to go into battle and why?That would depend on a couple of things. I have both. If it was not in sand or mud, the M 16 would be the better choice, because it has more refinements, is more inherently accurate, and is set up in a superior way. If I didn't know whether I might encounter lots of sand or mud, I'd go with the AK. It is more reliable in sandy and muddy environments. It also has the advantage of using a more effective round beyond 100 yards.

P.S. Just ignore the nasty comments. This is always a worthy topic.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 11, 2006, 11:09 PM
As suggested, there are literally hundreds of threads on this subject. Please take a look at those and then if you have specific questions, you can ask them here.

If you enjoyed reading about "AK-47 vs M16" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!