i know this has beb brought up before but ill do it anyway. but first, let it be known that this is a debate. heres the question wich one would be better in a combat situation. heres my answer, the ak is definately a reliable and rock solid gun, but it isn't a supergun and it will jam or misfeed if it is neglected.
wich also brings up my next point, the m-16 isnt as unreliable and flimsy as some of you make it out to be, if you clean it it will work pretty damn reliably. in 10 years of my dad owning his ar and 30 years prior mith my papa it has never misfired EVER. the ak is pretty much useless for the rifleman, it will get what... 10" groups. that coupled with the rainbow arc of the 7.62x39 it is barely effective really to 200. it is also not as durable as it is made out to be either, the reciever is made of the cheapest stamped steel on the planet, and it is pretty thin skinned too. but you have to admit, it is pretty cheap.
the m-16 is accurate, and theres no denying that is easily 10 times more accurate than the ak, and if it were chambered in a powerful enough cartrige
it would be effective to 900 yards. it is also strong as hell and since it is closed bolt it can almost be called water resistant, a definate plus in the sandstorm conditions of iraq. the ar is also much more ergonomic, changing mags is a breze, nothing to line up and it is verry fast. letting the bolt fly is so simple while on the ak you have to reach al the way over the gun,and the safety sucks. i realize that the ergonomics of the gun doesnt matter a whole bunch but under stress, it could become a hassle.
i think alot of the AK lovers or AR haters are the way they are because they watch moovies and dont own an ar-15, if you shot one and took serious time with an ar you just might start to like it and realize that it would be verry effective in the hands of a rifleman. just take a look at how bad we are whooping those towlheads. true they are have no training but just look at it.
neither of the rifles is my favorite but i vote m-16... and if the ak where better why would the best army in the world use the m-16
your turn
wich also brings up my next point, the m-16 isnt as unreliable and flimsy as some of you make it out to be, if you clean it it will work pretty damn reliably. in 10 years of my dad owning his ar and 30 years prior mith my papa it has never misfired EVER. the ak is pretty much useless for the rifleman, it will get what... 10" groups. that coupled with the rainbow arc of the 7.62x39 it is barely effective really to 200. it is also not as durable as it is made out to be either, the reciever is made of the cheapest stamped steel on the planet, and it is pretty thin skinned too. but you have to admit, it is pretty cheap.
the m-16 is accurate, and theres no denying that is easily 10 times more accurate than the ak, and if it were chambered in a powerful enough cartrige
it would be effective to 900 yards. it is also strong as hell and since it is closed bolt it can almost be called water resistant, a definate plus in the sandstorm conditions of iraq. the ar is also much more ergonomic, changing mags is a breze, nothing to line up and it is verry fast. letting the bolt fly is so simple while on the ak you have to reach al the way over the gun,and the safety sucks. i realize that the ergonomics of the gun doesnt matter a whole bunch but under stress, it could become a hassle.
i think alot of the AK lovers or AR haters are the way they are because they watch moovies and dont own an ar-15, if you shot one and took serious time with an ar you just might start to like it and realize that it would be verry effective in the hands of a rifleman. just take a look at how bad we are whooping those towlheads. true they are have no training but just look at it.
neither of the rifles is my favorite but i vote m-16... and if the ak where better why would the best army in the world use the m-16
your turn