m16 vs ak 47

[Solus]

When I went through boot camp at Ft. Knox back in the summer of '65  (   doesn't THAT sound like I'm an Old Timer?)  it was with the M14.  I loved that rifle.  I hit the 300m pop-up target every time with it.  Iron sights and you had to center the target in the front sight blade rather than the other way around at that range...but the confidence it gave me was incredible.   

The picture of a soldier in battle dress carrying a M14 that was on the cover of the pocket notepads we used with the caption "The Ultimate Weapon" helped a lot too.

When I first saw a M16, before even handling it, my first thought was Mattel.   After picking it up, that reaction was reinforced..it just felt too light.

I gained more respect for the AR format, if not the caliber, with use.  Since then I've come to think that the AR10 (as FQ mentioned) would, perhaps, be the best of both worlds.  I've never handled or even seen an AR10, so I don't know.

Anyone have insight to that question?

[JC5123]

Unfortunately, I cannot attest to the AR-10 as a battle rifle. I have one, but it has been converted to meet SR-25 specs. So, not a true measure of versatility. I can tell you what type of sniper rifle it makes. (F-ing Brilliant!) Knowing what I know about the weapon and the cartridge. I think that it would make an excellent battle rifle. Although you would still have the same issues as the M-16 as far as cleaning and maintanance.

[Solus]

Unfortunately, I cannot attest to the AR-10 as a battle rifle. I have one, but it has been converted to meet SR-25 specs. So, not a true measure of versatility. I can tell you what type of sniper rifle it makes. (F-ing Brilliant!) Knowing what I know about the weapon and the cartridge. I think that it would make an excellent battle rifle. Although you would still have the same issues as the M-16 as far as cleaning and maintanance.

Yeah...If I do ever build an AR, I would want to have it be a gas piston action.  I'd guess there are piston AR10's around?  I hear arguments both ways, but I'm just emotionally against dumping the hot dirty gas into the action.

[Big Frank]

Is this true? Honestly, I've seen this debated endlessly. But is that extra 4" buying you much inside of 300 yards which is what both weapons were designed for?  Moving to an AR-10 would be game changer, for good or ill (heavier load outs and fewer rounds) vs more ummph. Likewise the 6.8mm as a compromise. I'm just not convinced that with using an optic (which should be standard) the extra 4" is that big of a deal for the average grunt.
FQ13 who could be very wrong here

It's 5.5" and it does make a substantial difference in velocity and energy.

[twyacht]

Lt. Col. Plaster spoke of this at the NRA Conv. "Winning the Sniper War In Iraq"

Most Chechens, Taliban, Al-Quaeda, that flooded Iraq after our Shock & Awe, use 4X scopes,... rule of thumb, gets accurate hits at 400 meters. Beyond that is 50/50, based on shooter skill and equip. It's a hit or its not.

Our troops, prefer 10X optics, at long range, and a superior round in the 7.62x 51, to get effective kills out to 1000. The AR's, with 18" and/or 20" barrels have "probable" ranges covered to 400-600yds,  but house to house is the most effective.

The AK, is a up and close, Katy Bar The Door, urban assault rifle.  Period. Long range accuracy was never really considered; within 100yds. is a problem for those on the receiving end.

But remember, the AR is "finicky";...... twist, bullet weight, smaller bullet, conditions, let alone the shooters capabilities, all play a role. While the AK runs on 20 year old handloads, and filled with sand.

The up close house to house platform for the AR has merit. It always has. Range, and shooting beyond 250yds, + brings a lot of variables into both. Edge goes to the AR for distance, but AK has the ability, at close range, to just not stop firing.

[Sponsor]