Which was better?

>>33304647
m16
i like it more

File: Para FAL next to stock.jpg (1MB, 3258x1876px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3258x1876px

>intermediate calibers

They're both shit

File: WP_20160525_007[1].jpg (2MB, 2574x1722px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2574x1722px

Depends.

>>33304647
Yes

I have both, I like both, and I feel like I could bet my life on both.

I like shooting the AK more, though, I really don't like the SPROIINNG of the AR

>>33304722
>I really don't like the SPROIINNG of the AR
Get a buffer tube that isn't dogshit.

>>33304647
Yes, because reasons.

They're both good in their own way. To compare the two is slightly disingenuous, as they were made for two wholly different purposes on two wholly different fields of battle. They're both good. They both shoot. They're both reliable.

File: 20160601_125456.jpg (1MB, 2322x4128px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2322x4128px

>>33304647
5.45>5.56>7.62x39>7.62x51
AK-74>M16A1>M16A2>AKM>AK

The caliber is more relevant than the design, imo. Generally the AK is better designed from the start with the exception of the original milled AK compared with the AR being improved in "blocks." The AR even had an overall downgrade with the M16A2. The USGI magazine is now on its 4th follower revision IIRC, while the AK's original follower profile is still in use. The AK is better designed with system integration into mechanized warfare over the M16 and variants. It's overall very close. I'd say on a strategic level the AK is better (not that small arms are a big deal strategically) while both the AK-74 and M16 have use cases that give them tactical advantages in different situations.

File: tfw no high test asian gf.jpg (115KB, 600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 600x1067px

>>33304675
>implying 7.62x51 isn't also an intermediate cartridge

File: anigif_enhanced-25605-1428348546-9_preview.gif (55KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x282px

>>33304675
>I hate having plenty of ammo
>muh stoppin' powah

I like full-sized cartridges, but saying it tops intermediate cartridges in a bug out situation is like saying it helps being a 6'8" guy on a plane.

Let's all be honest here.

They're both shit. Better designs have completely outpaced them in the decades they've been out, the only reason either is still around is logistics and familiarity.

>>33305002
>t. XCR owner.

If we're talking the original M-16 vs the AK-47, the AK hands down. The original M-16 just had way too many issues (particularly in the environment it was used in).

>>33304647
The AR is a much better design. The AK was designed by a peasant for peasants.

>>33306142
well part of that is because the original m16 issued in vietnam isn't the original ar-15 design.

File: 1489202736406.jpg (77KB, 384x480px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 384x480px

>>33306168
DELET

>>33304647
I own both as well. They're both great. I actually like shooting the AK more. Just an exciting gun.

Objectively though I think I would say the AR platform is better, today. I think modern ARs are very dependable and very adaptable. They are super easy to change around and reconfigure. The round is good at killing humans, the gun has very small recoil. It's easy to put multiple rounds in the same hole. It's easy to change optics.

The AK, when modernized, can do a lot of that, but it's "base model" is still fairly "as-is." It definitely has a stronger system of magazine connection. The round is good at killing people. The stock sights are pretty weak.

However if you're talking a Vietnam era M16 vs a Vietnam era AK, I'd say they're very, very, very close and you can easily make the case those AKs are better than the first few thousand ARs, though by the end of the war I think, again, pretty equal.

File: 2016-08-10 11.42.02.jpg (2MB, 2376x1175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2376x1175px

>>33304647
Both