ak47 vs m16

[Bertros Bertros]

The only AK47 worth a mention. Guns pfft, you guys have so much angst...

[radiojake]

Hahaha

so how many of you guys who seem to be experts have actually needed to use said guns in any kind of situation outside of a shooting range?? or even have personal experience with them??

Guns are crap and are yet another stain on the human legacy

[High Guard]

Hahaha

so how many of you guys who seem to be experts have actually needed to use said guns in any kind of situation outside of a shooting range?? or even have personal experience with them??

Guns are crap and are yet another stain on the human legacy

Here are two things that make me more of a expert then most people:
1) I do war reenacting, and our crew Sergent is a Major in US military so we do a lot of training.
2) Before I moved to US, I was going to be a Russian Officer, so I have a fair amount of training with guns.

[Aegnor]

Hahaha

so how many of you guys who seem to be experts have actually needed to use said guns in any kind of situation outside of a shooting range?? or even have personal experience with them??

Guns are crap and are yet another stain on the human legacy

You're probably right. I think that the world would have been a better place without guns. Unfortunately some people think otherwise and when your life is at stake you have no other choice. I served in the Israeli military for 3 years, not because I wanted to, but because I had to. Some day perhaps people would understand that guns are not the answer for everything. Until then we have no other choice.

[High Guard]

Some day perhaps people would understand that guns are not the answer for everything. Until then we have no other choice.

Well said.

[vtmarik]

A sword. The days when solutions could be worked out between two men at sunrise with a duel ended when some damn fool put gunpowder behind a bullet.


I'd like to see everyone allowed to carry a sword rather than a gun. Guns require practice, sure; but swords require focus.

[MeDeFe]

I fully support your proposal, vt.

[kalishnikov]

Comparing these 2 weapons can't really be done. It's like saying which is better, a work truck or a Ferrari. It's that old adage "choose the right tool for the job".

These weapons were designed for different purposes at different periods in history.

The AK (or as I prefer Altima Kalishnikova) was designed for 3 basic reasons: reliability (ever seen Lord of War? He's right), ease of manufacture (stamped steel and hardwood are easy to come by) and caliber (after WWII 7.62 had pretty much the best ballistics you could come by). They are fairly inaccurate, also they get HOT AS HELL after 200-300 hundred rounds. Trust me, I own 2, 1 black synthetic (Czechoslovakian) , 1 old-school wood (Yugoslavian), both 7.62x39. The Russians are hard to come by and very expensive.

The M-16's primary characteristic is penetration, followed by controllability with a third as accuracy. The .223 round (or 5.56 NATO) is, an amazing round, able to out penetrate rounds with twice the load and easily accurate to 100 yards. 100 yards is a long shot with an Ak, but doable if your used to the gun. They were designed almost 2 decades later allowing for better materials and research. I'm not as knowledgeable on the M platform as I could be, I prefer the American AR platform to it.

Lastly, remember the culture difference. When Dr. Kalashnikov invented the Ak in the 40's, the point of war was still to kill, to fire as big of a round as possible at the enemy and make them dead.

In the US, the point of war is not to kill, it's to injure/maim, thus creating a drain on the support staff and supplies. This is quite obvious when comparing the discussed rounds, 7.62 is significantly larger. Only when we entered Vietnam did we realize that perhaps the 5.56 round was a bit too small, thus the rise in popularity of other platforms.

[kalishnikov]

For the record, I didn't read the thread other then the first few posts before replying, so this needs to be addressed.

Hahaha

so how many of you guys who seem to be experts have actually needed to use said guns in any kind of situation outside of a shooting range?? or even have personal experience with them??

Guns are crap and are yet another stain on the human legacy

First statement, I have, however I'm far from an expert.

Second statement, my friend, that is a wonderfully naive view of the world. As long as history has been recorded it's been nothing but aggression, we've got 2 constants that remain in this world and are unavoidable regardless of intentions: war and death.

From cavemen throwing rocks and spears at each other to modern-day ICBMs and HAARP, warfare has always been the shaping factor of society. It's thus inevitable that we will kill as well as possible, with the highest level of technology possible.

Without military action, there would be no such thing as freedom (no matter how convoluted that term has become in this "modern age" we live in). Without weapons, we would be the weak, at the mercy of others to do as they see fit. I, for one, will let you take what's mine when you've pried it from my dead hands. In this day and age, that requires knowledge and tools.

Do you honestly trust your government, or anyone with power, enough to not be armed when they are? Do you trust people enough to be at their mercy?

[Sven Hassel]

Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikov model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the worlds most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars.

this is from the movie "Lord of War"

[MeDeFe]

For the record, I didn't read the thread other then the first few posts before replying, so this needs to be addressed.

Hahaha

so how many of you guys who seem to be experts have actually needed to use said guns in any kind of situation outside of a shooting range?? or even have personal experience with them??

Guns are crap and are yet another stain on the human legacy

First statement, I have, however I'm far from an expert.

Second statement, my friend, that is a wonderfully naive view of the world. As long as history has been recorded it's been nothing but aggression, we've got 2 constants that remain in this world and are unavoidable regardless of intentions: war and death.

From cavemen throwing rocks and spears at each other to modern-day ICBMs and HAARP, warfare has always been the shaping factor of society. It's thus inevitable that we will kill as well as possible, with the highest level of technology possible.

Without military action, there would be no such thing as freedom (no matter how convoluted that term has become in this "modern age" we live in). Without weapons, we would be the weak, at the mercy of others to do as they see fit. I, for one, will let you take what's mine when you've pried it from my dead hands. In this day and age, that requires knowledge and tools.

Do you honestly trust your government, or anyone with power, enough to not be armed when they are? Do you trust people enough to be at their mercy?

Well, one can interpret what radiojake said as exactly what you said, with the addition that he doesn't like it. Just not in so many words.

[kalishnikov]

For the record, I didn't read the thread other then the first few posts before replying, so this needs to be addressed.

Hahaha

so how many of you guys who seem to be experts have actually needed to use said guns in any kind of situation outside of a shooting range?? or even have personal experience with them??

Guns are crap and are yet another stain on the human legacy

First statement, I have, however I'm far from an expert.

Second statement, my friend, that is a wonderfully naive view of the world. As long as history has been recorded it's been nothing but aggression, we've got 2 constants that remain in this world and are unavoidable regardless of intentions: war and death.

From cavemen throwing rocks and spears at each other to modern-day ICBMs and HAARP, warfare has always been the shaping factor of society. It's thus inevitable that we will kill as well as possible, with the highest level of technology possible.

Without military action, there would be no such thing as freedom (no matter how convoluted that term has become in this "modern age" we live in). Without weapons, we would be the weak, at the mercy of others to do as they see fit. I, for one, will let you take what's mine when you've pried it from my dead hands. In this day and age, that requires knowledge and tools.

Do you honestly trust your government, or anyone with power, enough to not be armed when they are? Do you trust people enough to be at their mercy?

Well, one can interpret what radiojake said as exactly what you said, with the addition that he doesn't like it. Just not in so many words.

In a way, yes. However my point is that the end outweighs the means, i.e, guns are far from a "stain on human legacy," they are a necessary evil brought on from human evolution and society itself.

[MeDeFe]

And where's the difference?

[Psilocbin]

AK-47, it's sturdier, has a more impressive legacy, and it makes a nicer noise.

You're full of it, my brother was in the military and says the AK can't aim worth shit, the M16 is twice the accuracy of that cheap shit piece of wood of a gun.

btw the AK is thuggish, meaning there is easier access to that shit of a gun.

[kalishnikov]

AK-47, it's sturdier, has a more impressive legacy, and it makes a nicer noise.

You're full of it, my brother was in the military and says the AK can't aim worth shit, the M16 is twice the accuracy of that cheap shit piece of wood of a gun.

btw the AK is thuggish, meaning there is easier access to that shit of a gun.

Your brother is correct, the M-16 is far more accurate do to manufacturing methods mainly, however I don't think vtmarik ever said anything about it's accuracy.

And thugs like it because it's cheap, shoots fast, and is easy to come by. There's not much that will stop a few guys with 100 round drums, as evidenced my the North Hollywood holdup a few years back.

The Ak does make a better noise though, the .223 from an M-16 sounds like a .22 magnum.

[kalishnikov]

And where's the difference?

It seems to me there's quite a difference there, but it's getting off-topic and would be much more if I elaborated. Thats more of a "Philosophical Ramifications of Weapons" thread.

[radiojake]

First statement, I have, however I'm far from an expert.

Second statement, my friend, that is a wonderfully naive view of the world. As long as history has been recorded it's been nothing but aggression, we've got 2 constants that remain in this world and are unavoidable regardless of intentions: war and death.

From cavemen throwing rocks and spears at each other to modern-day ICBMs and HAARP, warfare has always been the shaping factor of society. It's thus inevitable that we will kill as well as possible, with the highest level of technology possible.

Without military action, there would be no such thing as freedom (no matter how convoluted that term has become in this "modern age" we live in). Without weapons, we would be the weak, at the mercy of others to do as they see fit. I, for one, will let you take what's mine when you've pried it from my dead hands. In this day and age, that requires knowledge and tools.

Do you honestly trust your government, or anyone with power, enough to not be armed when they are? Do you trust people enough to be at their mercy?

I wouldn't say I'm naive at all, i know how the world works. I have a huge dis-trust of my government, cops, and generally anyone with an authoritarian power, but I also abhor guns. I think the idea of being armed and people owning guns is one of the major cultural difference's between America and Australia. You guys seem to have this idea that an armed population is the answer for protecting everyone. But I have the view if everyone has guns, everyone is going to continue to kill everyone.

I don't support military action in any sense, (and I would disagree with you that 'without military action there would be no freedom', war has never been about freedom, not even the american civil war. It's been about money and power of the elite, soldiers are pawns in a giant game of boys club chess) and I won't ever again pick up a gun and fire in my life (I once shot my grandpa's rifle at a bucket on his farm when I was about 14 or so).

[MeDeFe]

And where's the difference?

It seems to me there's quite a difference there, but it's getting off-topic and would be much more if I elaborated. Thats more of a "Philosophical Ramifications of Weapons" thread.

Please, DO elaborate on why you think the statements "[guns] are a necessary evil brought on from human evolution and society itself" and "Guns are crap and are yet another stain on the human legacy" are so different as to be nearly incompatible.

[Jenos Ridan]

Hahaha

so how many of you guys who seem to be experts have actually needed to use said guns in any kind of situation outside of a shooting range?? or even have personal experience with them??

Guns are crap and are yet another stain on the human legacy

To answer the part about expertise, all I know is the experts use the M-16, so I use the M-16.

And to Vtmark about the swords, nice dream. If it is made reallity that would be cool. Means I can have a real reason to have one.