 
|
Rych
 |
hmm, they both have their pros and cons. I think for military the M-16 is the better option. The AK-47 does big damage and is more like a machine gun than a rifle. The M-16 has much better long distance accuracy. |
|
sweet..dude..sweet..dude
 |
I hope not, I already have sharp shooter for the M-16, i don't like retraining. |
|
Carlos
|
Where you watching a special on the Military Channel??? They where showing the top Assault Rifles ever.. any who the ak47 won followed by the M-16..... I agree with the first answer. |
|
Chance20_m
 |
No. |
|
2eighty8
|
I saw this on the Discovery channel once on the comparison between the M16 and the AK47. Apparently (and I say that because I've fired neither), the M16 is much more accurate, while the AK-47, if you have it on auto, tends to fire a little higher after a round or two and the shooter has to constantly adjust. Also, the AK-47 is more durable, but the M16 packs more of a punch. |
|
RaceNut17
 |
No they should not. the AK use a 7.62 which has much more stopping power than the 5.56 that the M-16 or M-4 use that is a major plus. The M-16A2 is way more accurate. The M-4 Carbine was originally designed for vehicle operators and crews and is a close quarters weapon. The AK is a bit more bulky. The Heckler and Koch MP-5 is really nice and small. Today's battle field is a bit more urban and you do not really need to reach out and touch any one. 200 meters and most likely outside of that you are wasting ammo. The new XM weapon that the army was supposed to go to was supposed to be a huge step up. I remember them testing it at Aberdeen when I was there last a few years ago. I think the completion of that project has been suspended though just like the XM29 OICW before it obsolete before its incorporation.
But in my eval the AK-47 is not the answer either, right now the best rifle out there is the M-14 which the US used prior to the M-16. The M14 is the most accurate assault rifle ever made. I wish there was an upgrade done for this rifle. It is badarse if you ever get your hands and can properly go thorough the steps of orientating yourself to this platform you will see what I mean.
M-14 uses a 7.62 round but only has 20 round mags. |
|
whatwouldyodado2006
|
You think either the pentagon or that company that makes the M-16 would even consider it?
Mute point. The contract is already signed. Which works better in cold, sandy, or wet climates doesnt matter...to the people making the money.
I have a feeling the soldiers on the ground have a very different point of view. |
|
MP US Army
|
Having fired both the M-4 / M16 is the better choice.
It is more accurate and the ammunition is lighter so you can carry more. (the main reason the Army switched from the M-14) |
|
Roadrunner58-79
|
N O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
HM
|
The AK-47 is so effective with the terrorists and poor countries because its very simple to operate.Most of the people in conflicts using them probably don't even have cleaning kits.Also like was said before,M16 is closer to a rifle and and the AK is closer to a machine gun.A bunch of untrained rebel fighters are gonna be more effective spraying bullets everywhere than they would taking careful,aimed shots,and vice versa.Personally I like the G36.It is largely a matter of money and corporations.The new 6.8 mm round (which was tested primarily in an m4 I THINK) proved the perfect compromise between the 5.56 mm and the 7.62x39,but it wasn't adopted.Why?because rechambering costs money.I do hate NATO requirements though.I also agree the M-14 was exceptional,but it just isn't suited to urban environments.Like I said,G36 would be my rifle if I was on the frontlines.If i was primarily in close combat,I would take a P90. |
|
RTO Trainer
|
Only if we want to give up accuracy. |
|
darrell m
|
no. enough said |
|
prissy
|
M16 tried and true. lighter to carry, more accurate.
A newer version, M16-A4 coming out soon. |
|
nena
 |
the military should stick to the M16 the Ak47 are not as accurate as the M16. |
|
Brandon M
 |
no, for many reasons. although the ak series rifles are excellent weapons, they do not fit the US' mission in small arms. AK's aren't accurate enough, for one. they also have no available windage adjustment, a nice capability of the m16/m4. AK-47s are not manufactured in large numbers (or at all to my knowledge fully-automatic (class III) in the United States, where as FN, Colt, Bushmaster and numerous other manufacturers produce the M16/M4/AR-15 series rifles readily. Also, consider that the 7.62x39mm round fired by the AK-47 (5.45x39 by the AK-74) is not a NATO round, and this is a requirement by our military forces. |
|
Smoker06
 |
I can reaIly only speak fo myself, but I wouldn't give up my M4 for an AK47. |
|
Frank T
|
On my last tour in Iraq, my weapon was a M4 with a M203 grenade launcher attached. I was an advisor to the Iraqi army and conducted operations daily with them. I also had to train them in basic marksmanship with the AK and it was okay out to about 300 meters. I can consistently engage targets with a M4 or M16 out past 500 meters accurately. The AK is easier to maintain, but I still wouldn't take it over the US rifles. |
|
kellogg
|
look up the HK416/HK417. Its the design of the M4, with the reliability, or moreso, of the AK-47. It comes in 2 calibers, 5.56 and 7.62 (416/417, respectively). It comes in multiple barrell lengths. The suberged it in water for a few minutes, pulled it out and put a mag through it, no problem. The burried it in sand, pulled it out, put a mag through no problem. Its like an M4 f**ked an AK-47, and this is the child. Its pretty solid. Apparently, its very popular with our special operations guys (Delta and some SEAL teams are reported to have been using it for a while. It was actually designed in part by a former Delta operator) |
|
jeeni with the light brown hair
|
If defending my American soil, M-16 because it isn't likely to jam up do to sand. I wouldn't presume to know enough about combat matters abroad because A woman has absolutely no place in combat unless it is to defend on American soil. Though, I think where their is a lot of sand It might be a good idea to make the switch. I suppose. |
|
crock4
|
the ak 47 vs the m-16 what a silly question to ask. i will tell you this the ak47 has a shorter barrel its recoil system is a loose mounted spring ( no bar for the spring to slide on) that being said the worst thing about the ak 47 on single shot at short to mid range its fairley acurate but hit a good bust and all you get is the barn door efect where as the m-16 gives you an awsome group . ive known some snipers fire 6 round's in quick sucesstion into a white square no bigger than a postage stamp |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
