Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone catch this on the Military Channel last night?

You can see the list here. M-16 is #2, and AK-47 is #1.


When they were talking about the M-16, they mentioned it was developed by Eugene Stoner. I couldn't help but think that if I'm in Vietnam in the 60's, I'm not so sure I would trust my life to a gun designed by someone called "stoner" :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Yeah, I have seen that before. It is a pretty interesting show.

I also like your pun...Stoner...There was a lot of them carrying M-16s over in Nam wasn't there!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Yeah, I've seen it before, about a year ago or so. I think the military channel has a youtube page that you can watch some of the other Top Ten episodes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,177 Posts
I think they look at the ratings by how many of the guns are used and produced etc.The AK47 is used by almost every third world country due to it's ruggedness
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Yea believe me, come over here and you will see about a million AK's
it seems like everybody and their momma has one..

That why their numbers are so high. Dont worry though, now the iraqi's are starting to carry m16's. so undoubtably the numbers will go up on the 16's before too much longer. I could go on and on with that issue and other issues, but thats another day ..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
AK47 is one of the greatest combat, if not the greatest of all times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Hard to believe the M-1 was topped by the M-16.... I fired an AK-MS once in Germany in the late 70's during a "Know Thy Enemy's Weapons" day at the range. The sucker went "bang" every time I pulled the trigger. This was after I had picked it up off a tarp on the ground, where snow and mud had gotten into the receiver. Wiped it out, shoved in a mag, and rocked and rolled... My Army-issue M-16 would not have worked as well under those conditions.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,108 Posts
AK47 is one of the greatest combat, if not the greatest of all times.
Purely subjective.

Just because it is the most widely produced or distributed rifle in the world does not make it the "best". Best for what? Zero to 300 yards? Rapid fire? Reliability?

Its a relativley short range gun that shoots fast. It's not known for its accuracy. In the role that it typically encounters it does well, but so do many others.

Having shot both extensively, I'd take the more accurate AR.

While its true that all rifles have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other,I'll take the rifle with the edge in accuracy because that it what matters most when you are lining up the sights on someone that is shooting at you.

With that being said,I realize that the AR/AK debate could go on forever.:bier:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Opinions/Options for things that aren't on the list?

What would you add?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
AK47 is one of the greatest combat, if not the greatest of all times.
That depends upon your objective. In WWII the M-1 was the weapon of the day, followed by the adaptation incorporated into the M-14 (M1A). The effective range of these weapons far exceeds that of the AK-47and the M-16. However, the mission and terrain governs what is the greatest combat weapon of all times. The AK-47 and M-16 formats clearly were superior for jungle fighting, close in encounters, and city street fighting. On the other hand, for open field long range shooting, the M-1/M-14 is the greatest weapon of all time, and adaptations of them are still in use for special operations.

P.S. While I was in Vietnam we were issued the new M-16. At that time they were nothing but jammo-matics, and we cursed them. However, after 45 years of development and cleaning out the bugs, it is a nice weapon. I love my AR-15.

I also have my SKS that I brought home from Vietnam. It is the semi-automatic pre-cursor to the AK-47 and shoots the same round. It will shoot anything anywhere. However, I still much prefer the AR-15 as a day in and day out rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
I watched a show not too long ago, in it was a comparision of the ak and the m4, it was a show to decide which weapon OVERALL was the best.

They had accuracy, most reliable, longest effective range and so forth, needless to say the M4 won, dont get me wrong, the ak is a fine weapon.

But for todays fighting, a weapon needs to do more than just shuck rounds out. Therefor, without a doubt I would choose my handy dandy M4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
I have used both in combat (Vietnam) and can tell you that, at that time (67-68) and at that place, there was no contest. The AK was by far the better weapon. Although I had qualified as expert with the M-16 in the States and really liked it, once in combat I learned to hate it because it would jam at the slightest provocation. Sometimes it was a little dirt. Sometimes a little powder residue. And sometimes no apparent reason. Certainly it was accurate, but in that environment the accuracy was useless. Too, most of our troops abilities were far more limiting that the rifle's accuracy. I thought then and think now that the early M-16s paid a reliability price for their accuracy and that the price was way too high.

I am certain that today's M4 is much better than the first generation M-16, but I think that if I was in an environment where accuracy was paramount I would be looking at a bolt action .308 or similar. Meanwhile the AK is simple to use, never jams and puts out the bullets albeit not to pinpoint accuracy. It has my vote for #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
I have used both in combat (Vietnam) and can tell you that, at that time (67-68) and at that place, there was no contest. The AK was by far the better weapon. Although I had qualified as expert with the M-16 in the States and really liked it, once in combat I learned to hate it because it would jam at the slightest provocation.
I had the exact identical experience from stateside to Vietnam during the same time frame. The first round fired by me from the M-16 in Vietnam was a jammer. Damn! Talk about a confidence killer. I have been told that the problems were two-fold -- wrong powder charge and lack of a chrome receiver. Whatever the cause, I have never had a failure on my civilian AR-15.

P.S. I suppose that my Vietnam jamming experience has soured my enthusiasm for any pistol that has any history of jamming whatsoever. Hence, I stay away from 1911's, except for collector purposes (regardless of brand) because there jamming experience, however slight. Not so on my Sig, Ruger, XD, and Glock which have never jammed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
I am certain that today's M4 is much better than the first generation M-16, but I think that if I was in an environment where accuracy was paramount I would be looking at a bolt action .308 or similar. Meanwhile the AK is simple to use, never jams and puts out the bullets albeit not to pinpoint accuracy. It has my vote for #1.
AK's can jam, and do.

Yes, AK's were noticeably more reliable than the early M16's.

However, due to substantial improvements, later models like the M4 have closed the gap in regard to reliability. There's little difference if any between the two today.

An M16 and bolt action .308 are apples and oranges. The M16 is designed for combat, whereas a bolt action .308 is geared for sniper duty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,125 Posts
In 1967, I traded in my M16 and got a M14 and it work every time.:tumbleweed:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
37 Posts
Purely subjective.

Just because it is the most widely produced or distributed rifle in the world does not make it the "best". Best for what? Zero to 300 yards? Rapid fire? Reliability?

Its a relativley short range gun that shoots fast. It's not known for its accuracy. In the role that it typically encounters it does well, but so do many others.

Having shot both extensively, I'd take the more accurate AR.

While its true that all rifles have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other,I'll take the rifle with the edge in accuracy because that it what matters most when you are lining up the sights on someone that is shooting at you.

With that being said,I realize that the AR/AK debate could go on forever.:bier:
Personally I find fair enough accuracy with the AK-47 up to 150 yards quick fire and up to 200 yards with the right elevation/windage adjustment...

But if I want to bump that distance up the AK-74 is more ideal. it shoots near the same accuracy as an AR-15 and has the reliability upgraded from an AK-47! Less kick than one too!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
37 Posts
AK's can jam, and do.

Yes, AK's were noticeably more reliable than the early M16's.

However, due to substantial improvements, later models like the M4 have closed the gap in regard to reliability. There's little difference if any between the two today.

An M16 and bolt action .308 are apples and oranges. The M16 is designed for combat, whereas a bolt action .308 is geared for sniper duty.
I've put 2,000 rounds through my AK-47(didn't clean for about 750 rounds) and 450 through my 74. Not a jam yet, even though ones a WASR-10!!! How could this be???

The reasoning on reliability is due to the crammed in parts on the AR-15.

The AK rifles you take apart and see how simple and open the system is.

The AK thus is less prone to jams due to most grunge/dirt also a scratch or 2 in the internals won't cause much harm or problems unlike a AR-15...

So I have little confidence in the thought that the AR has bridged the gap...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
The Kalashnakov is a reliable battle piece; of this there is no doubt. The main problem that beset the early M-16 rifles was a batch of W-W 760 ball propellant. This particular run left a great deal of residue in the forend of the rifle's gas tube, thus garnering the piece's "jam-a-matic" reputation. Once that batch had been exposed (and expended) the M-16 became more reliable. while there were other problems, the M-16 is generally a sound design.

Once there was a meeting of Kalashnikov and Stoner. They exchanged custom-made weapons and were friendly toward one another. I would have liked to have been a "fly on the wall" during their conversation!

Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,708 Posts
Forty years ago, I am pretty sure that we would have all traded our M-16s for M-14s due to our location in the flat land river delta. The M-14 was more reliable and accurate. So it really depends on your area of operations and the mission and the era being discussed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
37 Posts
The Kalashnakov is a reliable battle piece; of this there is no doubt. The main problem that beset the early M-16 rifles was a batch of W-W 760 ball propellant. This particular run left a great deal of residue in the forend of the rifle's gas tube, thus garnering the piece's "jam-a-matic" reputation. Once that batch had been exposed (and expended) the M-16 became more reliable. while there were other problems, the M-16 is generally a sound design.

Once there was a meeting of Kalashnikov and Stoner. They exchanged custom-made weapons and were friendly toward one another. I would have liked to have been a "fly on the wall" during their conversation!

Scott
I would have loved to be a fly too, my only issue is that in the field with dust and dirt it can effect the AR alot faster than the AK... Personally the AK-74 bridged the gap for me... I shot along side an AR (accuracy test) and was only losing at the last 15 yards (of 200) on by 1 inch.. Not a big enough difference to count to me...
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top