Officer of Engineers

Oh, come on. The AK series is bad but it's not that bad. The worst I've got is a 7.6 inch grouping at 100 metres. The best 4.2. On the C7, I get 3.4.

Mind you, on my Remington .30-06, 2.1 inch groups.

__________________
Chimo

Anon

The best group i ever shot with my 'worn out' old M-21 was something like .6-.7" at 100 meters.

Officer of Engineers

My best shot ever was a heart shot at a moose 800 yards away with said .30-06. But I'm sure now you're going to put me to shame.

Alex

I'm not sure if I haven't said it before, but... I think it's very wrong to even try to compare M16 and AK-47...

1. Year of adoption by military. When every Russian soldier was armed with Ak-47, M16 hadn't existed at all. Why don't you try to compare M16 to Fedorov's assault rifle (1916) then?

2. Current mass infantry weapon. Ak-47 isn't widely used in Russian Army. Its manufacture was ceased long ago.
It's better to look at Ak-74 and later models.

3. Caliber. Excuse me, but to compare 7.62 to 5.56? 7.62 is too large for a hand gun and degrades accuracy, though contributes to power.
Let's look again at Ak-74, which caliber and power are closer to those of M-16.


Well, that' my 3 main points. I mentioned Ak74, but I didn't try to prove it's better or not worse than M-16. I just want to try to show better path for this discussion.

feynman

The convo is just hypothetical. I don't see what's wrong with comparing X vs Y, no
matter what X and Y are (or even getting people's opinions on "should frogs wear
orange shoes when they swim?"). But certaintly you are entitled to your opinion

I've really enjoyed the countless vs topics, no matter how "rediculous" they are. I
don't know much about military stuff, so it has been an entertaining way to learn lots
of new stuff.

Anon

Mine was a little farther sir.

(Never make a field grade look bad. Well- too bad, lol)

Fury

This is my first post to this forum, Hi everyone About the the topic, AK-47 vs M16, are they really comparable since the AK is ancient history and M16, I mean the first model used in vietnam isn't very state of the art either. I think a better comparison would be AK-74M vs M16A4 or why not AK-107/108 vs M16A4.
One thing about AK's accuracy, I know its not the best of its kind but when I was in the army I shot with Rk62 ( modification from AK47 ) up to 300 meters and hit a man sized target with fairly good chances, from 150 meters the grouping of ten shots wasn't any bigger than my left palm when I placed it on the center of the target. So thats my expririence with AK and Im looking forward to shoot with M16.

Fireworxx

well.... the ak series has more punch behind them... but the m-16 is more accurate, reliable etc...

Captain C

I think one thing that should be considered is where the weapon will be used. In the wet and muddy jungle, the AK-47 round will deflect less and the weapon may have less of a jamming problem. Anywhere else the M-16 is far more accurate and has other advantages such as: Lighter weight, quicker reaction/movement time (due to less weight to move) better sights, and less recoil allowing the operator to get back on target quicker.

One thing to consider is the M-16 is a 45 year old design in itself. Yes, modifications have been made to it over the years. Yes these modifications have by and large improved the weapon. Yes, the AK 47 has been improved as well (AK-74) The bottom line is, which weapon do you as an individual prefer for the situation you are going to be fighting in? Anywhere but very long engagement ranges and the jungle; I would choose the M16 A-4. Long ranges (to 800 yards) I would choose the M-14, jungle M-14 A-1......

__________________
Revelation 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
(Been There)

Anon

Just gimme an M-25 with dual optical/iron sights and you can call me a happy camper.

Fury

This a little off topic but here it goes...
Somewhere I heard that US marine corps is using Remington M40 sniper rifle, true of false?
Talking about good sniper rifles, long time ago I had a special opportunity to fire Sako TRG-42 which is chambered to .338 Lapua magnum round and I can tell its not to be taken lighty if you happen to be on the wrong end of barrel.

Praxus

The Marine Corps developed the M40, it is not built as an M40 by Remington. The M40 is a mix of parts from different weapons and custum parts. It's based mainly off of the Remington 700.

Anon

The Jarheads have been using the M-40 since Vietnam.
Tried and true weapon, and a very potent cartridge(7mm Rem Magnum).

The .338 Lapua is no joke either.

Officer of Engineers

7mm Rem Mag is a bit too much gun for me. How does the .338 Lapua compare? Been thinking should move off the .30-06 this year. It's a nice cartridge but been wanting some more punch and a flatter trajectory.

Praxus

I thought the M40 fired standered 7.62 x 51 mm NATO?