AK-47 No. 1 rifle...
- Thread starter QADRI
- Start date
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Well AK-47 though the best due to its ruggedness but my personal favourite is the M-16 with a view finder and a grenade launcher. Sure has some fire power and can blow things up thanks to the grenade launcher that is attached to it.
QADRI
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 913
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
gernade launcher can also be attached with Ak-47. Some of SSGs used Ak-47 with gernade launcher in Lal Masjid operation...i have those pics but i am unable to attach them due to some problem but i copied those pictures from Webmaster gallery(pictures of lal Masjid) moreover i saw in Geo News after Karachi bomb blast two ranger soldiers are holding Ak-47 with assult scope. so i am sure that gernade launcher and assult scope can also be attached with AK-47..
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Well i wasnt aware of that. However if you could please post the pics as well because i have still to see an AK-47 being equipped with a scope and a launcher.
QADRI
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 913
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Well QADRI its not an AK-47 and also i don't think that's a grenade launcher either, to me it looks more like a flash light sort of a thing. i may be wrong with that but its certainly not an AK-47.
PakmanUSA
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I have used both the AK and M-16. Both have some advantages over the other. The AK is a simple design from what I can tell they copied from the Germans MP-43,44s.
The AK is a more rugged weapon but the M-16 is much more accurate than the AK. The AK-47 has a heavier bullet than the M-16 and therefore will offer better penetration in most cases.
One of the things I didn't like about the AK is the bolt wouldn't remain back when the mag was empty, the M-16 will. Also the M-16 is mags are loaded into the weapon with less trouble.
Firing the weapons at night the AK has a much bigger muzzle flash from what I recall over the M-16.
If I had to fight in a area with a lot of brush I would choose the AK-47. In more open areas I would choose the M-16 for accuracy.
The AK is a more rugged weapon but the M-16 is much more accurate than the AK. The AK-47 has a heavier bullet than the M-16 and therefore will offer better penetration in most cases.
One of the things I didn't like about the AK is the bolt wouldn't remain back when the mag was empty, the M-16 will. Also the M-16 is mags are loaded into the weapon with less trouble.
Firing the weapons at night the AK has a much bigger muzzle flash from what I recall over the M-16.
If I had to fight in a area with a lot of brush I would choose the AK-47. In more open areas I would choose the M-16 for accuracy.
PakmanUSA
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I have used both the AK and M-16. Both have some advantages over the other. The AK is a simple design from what I can tell they copied from the Germans MP-43,44s.
The AK is a more rugged weapon but the M-16 is much more accurate than the AK. The AK-47 has a heavier bullet than the M-16 and therefore will offer better penetration in most cases.
One of the things I didn't like about the AK is the bolt wouldn't remain back one you mag was empty, the M-16 will. Also the M-16 is mags are loaded into the weapon with less trouble.
Firing the weapons at night the AK has a much bigger muzzle flash from what I recall over the M-16.
If I had to fight in a area with a lot of brush I would choose the AK-47. In more open areas I would choose the M-16 for accuracy.
You also have to ask, why is the AK so popular? They are cheap to make with a simple design. Someone spoke about the G-3 a much better rifle than the AK but expensive to build and the ammo is more costly as well when considering 7.62x 51 vs 7.62x39. You can make more ammo for the AK with less cost per round than the G-3 with the same materials.
The AK is a more rugged weapon but the M-16 is much more accurate than the AK. The AK-47 has a heavier bullet than the M-16 and therefore will offer better penetration in most cases.
One of the things I didn't like about the AK is the bolt wouldn't remain back one you mag was empty, the M-16 will. Also the M-16 is mags are loaded into the weapon with less trouble.
Firing the weapons at night the AK has a much bigger muzzle flash from what I recall over the M-16.
If I had to fight in a area with a lot of brush I would choose the AK-47. In more open areas I would choose the M-16 for accuracy.
You also have to ask, why is the AK so popular? They are cheap to make with a simple design. Someone spoke about the G-3 a much better rifle than the AK but expensive to build and the ammo is more costly as well when considering 7.62x 51 vs 7.62x39. You can make more ammo for the AK with less cost per round than the G-3 with the same materials.
Guys, one aspect you are not emphasising is the cost. The AK is shipped for I believe $100 per weapon ( wholesale, govt. to govt). Any western rifle. G-3, M-16 or FN is , I believe, in excess of $1000 a piece. This is the main reason why the AK is so popular.
I talked to a Pakistani army officer about its selection of the G-3. He said that at the time the chinese were offerring the AK for free. But they still chose the G-3.
The AK is primarily an assault weapon. That means it is designed to put down massive firepower to keep the heads of the enemy down ( 'win the fire fight' in military terms) as the infantry 'assault' enemy positions. Accuracy is not important. The fully automatic function creates a mindset in the soldier of putting down large amounts of inaccurate fire.
In the British army ( and I am sure other armies) the standard issue rifle (FN) was deliberately doctored to cancel the fully automatic function, it could only fire single shots. This is more effective and more accurate. I have seen many reports of the Iraqi resistance being described as the 'gang that can't shoot straight'. You and I have seen endless TV footage of arabs firing from the hip on fully automatic, these people are totally useless. If you fired like that at any training establishment they would send you back to basic training.
A friend of mine talked to a British army soldier who was in Afghanistan, and he described the Afghans as hopeless shots.
Take my advice, for general infantry use, the AK goes in the bin. Any modern rifle with an optical sight is worth 10 AK's.
This is a quote from an expert who was using an armalite with an optical eyesite; ' I can't remember the last time I missed at 600 metres'.
How far can you shoot with an AK?
If the Taliban had even G-3's with optical eyesights, the war in Afghanistan would change overnight.
My two cents.
I talked to a Pakistani army officer about its selection of the G-3. He said that at the time the chinese were offerring the AK for free. But they still chose the G-3.
The AK is primarily an assault weapon. That means it is designed to put down massive firepower to keep the heads of the enemy down ( 'win the fire fight' in military terms) as the infantry 'assault' enemy positions. Accuracy is not important. The fully automatic function creates a mindset in the soldier of putting down large amounts of inaccurate fire.
In the British army ( and I am sure other armies) the standard issue rifle (FN) was deliberately doctored to cancel the fully automatic function, it could only fire single shots. This is more effective and more accurate. I have seen many reports of the Iraqi resistance being described as the 'gang that can't shoot straight'. You and I have seen endless TV footage of arabs firing from the hip on fully automatic, these people are totally useless. If you fired like that at any training establishment they would send you back to basic training.
A friend of mine talked to a British army soldier who was in Afghanistan, and he described the Afghans as hopeless shots.
Take my advice, for general infantry use, the AK goes in the bin. Any modern rifle with an optical sight is worth 10 AK's.
This is a quote from an expert who was using an armalite with an optical eyesite; ' I can't remember the last time I missed at 600 metres'.
How far can you shoot with an AK?
If the Taliban had even G-3's with optical eyesights, the war in Afghanistan would change overnight.
My two cents.
AliFarooq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,969
- Reaction score
- 0
The other thing is, Nato;s are getting most of their kills by bombing the taliban. Most fire fights are fought from long range, even if they hit with m16, there isa very low change of doing critical damage.
Taliban is not short of men power, they can get 10 ak-47s n 10 men to sum up the 10=1 ratio.
The only thing with ak-47 is the aim, but in other fields its better, it can do more damage, it will work in any condition. Major problem with m16 is that it jams a lot.
Shiny Capstar
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 248
- Reaction score
- 0
It all depends on the engagement.
The 5.56 quite often does not put them down first shot every time at the kind of ranges that we often engage at but it certainly does when you put a few more in the same target in quick succession. The joy of being able to re-aim very quickly and put more shots in. The Taliban however are worse off, their AK47 shots drop off harmlessly in front of our positions quite a lot when fighting at long range.
On a tactical level they have so far failed to demonstrate this.
If the AK47 had better sights it could be slightly more accurate, but as it is it is often incapable of point fire at any decent range.
The 7.62x39's wounding characteristics change greatly with range by the way, at some ranges they usually inflict more damage than the 5.56, at others they do less (depending on what weapons you are using).
The M16 has a very bad reputation from its early days, one that current versions do not deserve but one they will probably never lose. It is very reliable if it is maintained possibly, the Ak47 does however win hands down on reliability. Its largest plus point.
Please note that I have not used the M16 on operations or in combat, but I have used another 5.56x45mm weapon the SA80 in action, (I hated the A1 but love the A2), a weapon which has similar ballistics.
PakmanUSA
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
By the way my British friend is right. COST is a big factor. I remember using the M-16A1 the hand gaurds were junk to say the least. The new M-16s still must be kept clean but the weapon is more durable. In the begining the M-16 was listed as a self cleaning rifle if I recall rightly. Kept clean the weapon works well. I can assure you the new M-16s use a heavier bulllet and can penetrate a helmet out to about 800 meters If I recall. At that range the M-16 is more accurate than the slower moving round of the AK-47.
Similar threads
