M16 Vs Ak-47 Vs M4A1 vs AK-74
 

Which rifle is simpler to use, cheap to build, easier to get, and have farther range? I think the M4A1 is teh most durable because of it's shorter barrel length, and the lightest one

AK's are the best rifles in the world. Lok at how many countries and "groups" use them, not only for their ease to purchase, but for their reliability, mass production, cheap, effective means of killing people. biggrin:

Re: M16 Vs Ak-47 Vs M4A1 vs AK-74
 

[quote="Blitz-krieg":fb3d1]Which rifle is simpler to use, cheap to build, easier to get, and have farther range? I think the M4A1 is teh most durable because of it's shorter barrel length, and the lightest one[/quote:fb3d1]

This is the most rediculas question ever. Using those thin lines of qualifications the AK-47 wins all classes. Range for an m-16(a2) since you didnt specify, is 550m on a point target. M4 is 450m. AK-47(non -M series, IE 7.62x39) sighting range is 800m and has a killing range of up to 1500m. Its obviously the easiest to get, maintain, and operate since any asshat in the world either has one or will have one by the time there 5 in some countries, younger in others. M4 is not the most durrable, again the ak wins because of its loose tolerances that allow the weapon to opperate even when heavly neglected. Where as the 16, and 4 have tighter tolerances and after firing hundreds of rounds or being neglected for a period of time will fowl, and generally suck.

Darn weapon n00bs.

being a fan of real rifle caliber I have to say the AK-47/AKM.

the AK-74 is waaaayyyy to light (in hitting power), the 5.56mm rifles are also underpowered (didn't some guy in Black Hawk Down (the book, not movie) have to shoot a Somali like 3-5 times to drop him?)

considering that the 5.56 nato round was designed to wound and not kill, and the 7.62 was meant to destroy the target, I'm going with AK47. Also, The 5.56 tumbles as it exits the barrel making it less accurate, where as the 7.62 is set on a flat spin. As I recall the AK fires just a bit faster than both of them as well (cant remember exactly). The AK is what, 40 years old? and it really hasnt changed much in that time. Yet it is still one of the best designed and most versatile weapons in the world. Damn Soviet engineers!

As deleto said, 5.56 nato rounds were meant to wound, so that the enemy has to get 2 other people to carry the wounded guy off the battlefield, therefore eliminating 3 people instead of one.

Wait a minute, the bigger the mm size, the more damage it is?

Isn't that the way it works with most things?

If I throw a 5mm rock at you it might hurt a bit, but if I throw a 50cm rock at you, it might crush your leg.

7.62mm bullets will rip you apart no problem.

Not nedessarly (i think).
You should also look at the fact if the bullet is FMJ or JHP.

provided that:

1: your enemy CARE about their wounded (not the case in Somalia)
2: you are falling back or gaining slowly so enemy has time to evac wounded.

If you're advancing rapidly like the US in Iraq, then all those casualties need to be cared for by the US, slowing down US forces.

Only FMJs are legal for use in war.
JHPs can be used in anti-terror ops though but are not even standard issue to infantry (Delta Force maybe)

okay im a total gun n00b...
2 questions

1. whats the difference between ak 47 and 74?
2. what is FMJ and JHP?

FMJ= Full metal jacket

JHP= Jackeled Hallow point

Hallow point rounds do a lot more damage on contact

AK-47 is the standard 7.62mm round while the AK-74 fires the 5.45mm round

if the FMJ does less damage, why is it only allowed for war?

Its the only round that is allowed at all, peace time or wartime under the Geneva convention.

Although some countries/factions don't recgonize the geneva convention and use different rounds that will do numerous things to you.

On order to really understand the rifles you have to fire them both, I have never fired an m4, but i have fired an ak, and an ar-15, with server m4 parts on it.

The normal ak rounds are better than the normal ar rounds, but the hollow point ar rounds work MUCH better than the crappy russian hollowpint ak rounds.

the 5.56 is just as acccurate as the ak's 7.62, and almost never tumbles, it was simply propoganda told to the soldiers who ere given a smaller round and didn't want it.

The ak is also much simpler to clean, operate, and repair, but the ar is much better for pinpoint accuracy at longer ranges, as the recoil is so light that you can easily fire it off of your groin, provived you do not fire it on full-auto (ouch)

So all in all, I would have to go with the ak, but the armies that use it are often not as well trained as the us army, and no matter how powerful the weapon is, if you cannot hit anything with it, it means nothing.

Just anothe reason to hate whitey.

Ok this bullshit about nato 5.56 tumbling when it exits the barrel, what the fuck are you people smoking? If any round tumbled out of a barrel aside from a muzzel loaded non rifled weapon, no one in the world would fire it. The only point a 5.56 round tumbles is when it strikes a human target. On impact the round buzz saws and tumbles through the body producing etream internal wounds a target will likly survive from for a few days, then die from internal injurys if not properly treated. It is a very sound millitary tactic using the logic that it takes far more resources to care for a wounded soldier than it does one on the front lines. In this way your thining there front line resources, medical supplies, and other items. Its not so much to make 2 people have to carry him off the battelfield in a literal sense as it is a metafore for holding up there entire system.

Now what you may have heard about the 5.56 round and mistaken it for tumbling, is its arc. All projectiles have them no matter how fast they go. Higher the speed the flatter the arc, slower speed, more arc. In other words firing a 5.56 round at a traget 300m away takes proper prediction of the fall of the bullet. While firing a 7.62 round at that range means you wouldnt have to account for much bullet fall what so ever.

The 5.56 vs the 7.62 round debate was solved when even the russians went with a smaller higher velocity round. The 5.45mm round in the Ak-74 that was developed after the russinas say what the 5.56 had done in the m-16 in vietnam. Kalashnikov himself has spoke to the value of the smaller round.

Our C6 which fires 7.62 has almost no arc up to 600m.

US 240 7.62 has jack shit for arc at that same range. Its just the round size. Like i said. .50 cal will have near 0 arc at that range, so little you wouldnt even have to account for when firing. Hense why an Ak-47 sighting range is 800m, unlike the 300m sighting range for the m-16.

C6 = M240.

I think you guys just started using it though, didn't you? We've been using it for a while now.

[quote="ED!":bb5bb]Just anothe reason to hate whitey.[/quote:bb5bb]

"Gonna git me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see!
Gonna git me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see...
And when I kill all the whiteys I see,
The white man he won't bother meeee!
Gonna git me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see!"

- Garrett Morris, SNL.

Classic. cool:

[quote="Sgt Stryker":0dbc0]being a fan of real rifle caliber I have to say the AK-47/AKM.

the AK-74 is waaaayyyy to light (in hitting power), the 5.56mm rifles are also underpowered (didn't some guy in Black Hawk Down (the book, not movie) have to shoot a Somali like 3-5 times to drop him?)[/quote:0dbc0]

i think that was because he was using teflon coated rounds