AK 47 vs M16, which one wins and why?

>AK 47

No such thing.

>>35184176
Lets just give 8 year old OP a break and assume he means any rifle that follows the 7.62x39 design

M16. Carriers more ammo far easily. Easier to send rounds away. Total shut for attachments.

>>35184165
AR platform because it's so modular.

>>35184165
Ak for woodwork masthrbation

M16 for actually shooting people

>>35184165
Or maybe for a better convo, let's say it's ar vs 5,45 ak

>>35184165
neither; they're inanimate objects without drive or a sense of competition

>>35184197
We have had both convos to death, but 5,45 vs ar is closer and more interesting.

>>35184237

>Platform

>>35184165
AKM if you're poor an illeterate.
Ak-74 if youre slightly less poor but still mostly illiterate.
AR family if you can afford it and read well enough to learn how to assemble and maintain a simple machine.

AK type weapons are cheap simple weapons for poor simple people.

>>35184165
for a more fair comparison lets do ak74 vs. ar15
also here are some videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cGKxueLSHY&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcAkSFrdAs8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b-swIEY1qE
man typing ar15 vs. ak74 was hard on YT
THIS PLACE IS NOT A WIKI DO RESEARCH

>>35184543
t. noguns

>>35184176
Wait, you're telling me that the Type II and Type III along with its given deriatives were never issued

>>35184165
For plinking paper on a range?
M16.
For a war zone?
AKM/74.

>>35184165
I would be willing to bet the AK would still work if you shot it with an AR, but not vice versa.

>years later, /k/ still replies to AK vs M16 threads

File: vladimir-putin-laughing.gif (4MB, 347x244px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 347x244px

Itt: highschool freshmen

If you have the logistical structure to support it, the M16, if you are working with limited support then the AK

In the age of optics, muh accuracy is now irrelevant as the AK's limiting sights is no longer an issue

File: 1504858661061.jpg (93KB, 535x800px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 535x800px

>>35184176
According to whom?

File: what.jpg (1MB, 4558x4542px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4558x4542px

>>35184165
>AK
Which variant

Depends. Different people like either gun for different reasons. Let me share my rudimentary knowledge like I know something

It's common knowledge that the AK variety is more reliable. Meaning it doesn't have to be cleaned nearly as much as an AR, it strips faster and has less fine parts that might fail. Also the 7.62 x 39 is a beefier round that won't deflect as easily.

Many consider the AR to be a mechanically finer platform. It's lighter with a smaller round, and one of its most highlighted advantages over the AKs is that it keeps better groupings in quick successive fire. Also the 5.56 being narrower and faster, it has a flatter trajectory.

In short, the AR system suits the US and much of the developed world well, and the AK system suits Russia and much of the third world well

File: 1490606511541.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>35188561
>talks about AK and 7.62x39
>talks about Russia and the AK

>>35188862
Well I did say rudimentary knowledge, I guess I associated the SKS round with still being prevalent to AKs. So how does the 5.56x39 compare with the others I mentioned?

>>35188862
>>35189248
Assuming you're referring to it and the AK74

>>35184165
>Pure fun factor
-AK

>Maximum modularity for mission specific work
-AR

>Short range urban/jungle environment
-AK

>All other combat situations
-AR

I have 6 AKs because I love the style, cool factor, and fun too shoot.

My 1 AR is my go to for HD or SHTF fantasy land.

The AK-74 has a flatter trajectory and less recoil as in it can "keep better groupings in quick successive fire."

>>35189341
>>35189248

>>35184176
Is such a thing, is more unusual. Nice try, dum-dum.

File: 738.png (75KB, 200x257px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 200x257px

>>35188561
VERY rudimentary. AR is more reliable if kept clean every couple of thousand rounds. AK is more susceptible to fouling from dirt, mud, etc. but can be cheaper to make.
Cost of manufacture is the real advantage of the AK. But even then it's kind of losing to the AR these days.

>>35189468

AR is not reliable, but its main advantage is that most of its malfunctions can be solved with a quick tap-rack-bang. While the AK malfunctions alot less, when it does it takes longer to resolve.

But that being said real life combat isn't a bunch of fast reloads and quick draws and when it comes down to it I would personally prefer the AK

>>35189512
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU
I thought school had started. They've repeated these tests with different models.
Tap-rack-bang is the self-loading pistol drill, brainlet. It doesn't matter if you prefer the AK, you don't own either platform.

>>35189675

congrats, you're a LARPer with no real experience.

Yes the AK will probably malfunction if you shovel mud on it while the bolt is open (something they didn't do with the AR), however in real life that will probably never happen and its the fine dust and little bits of dirt you get from walking around for long periods of time before the gun is ever fired that cripples the AR in the end, sure you can try cleaning it every so often, but field conditions are hardly ideal and field stripping an AR often makes any issue worst. The AK's looser tolerances makes the fine dust and small bits of dirt much less of an issue and the design is very much more ideal for field stripping out on patrol and such


And yes, unlike most of the poorfags here who still live with their parents I actually have a good job that allows me to buy the toys I want

File: Laughing Slut.gif (3MB, 377x372px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 377x372px

>>35189743
>(something they didn't do with the AR)
They had the dust covers closed on both, next
>in real life [...] its the find dust and little bits of dirt you get from walking around for long periods of time before the gun is ever fired that cripples the AR in the end
Look who's LARPing now. I carried an AR in the service and you are hilariously full of shit. I have never heard of nor experienced anything of the sort, and everyone I knew kept their dust covers closed anyway.
>field stripping an AR often makes any issue worst
This is the opposite of truth.
>design is very much more ideal for field stripping
Are you very telling the truth?
>I actually have a good job that allows me to buy the toys I want
Which clearly doesn't include a quality AR.

>>35189743
>I actually have a good job that allows me to buy the toys I want
What do you do?

>>35189826
>the dust cover keeps out all dust in the field
confirmed for POG. Let me guess you still had an A2?

>>35189826

I'm sure your experience as an Army cook really gave you that AR trigger time

>>35189849

I work offshore as a rope access tech. Alots of time away from home just collecting money and not really spending it

>>35189855
>projecting
>>35189849
M4A1, nice confirmation bias, pal.

>>35189880

So an army pog then?

>>35189880
So you've never had dusty magazines/rounds, dusty barrel, or other dust getting into the receiver even with the dust cover closed? You've never had any of that moondust inside of your gun with the dust cover closed?

>>35189934
That's a negative, 4chins the hacker.

File: I'm done here.jpg (37KB, 250x312px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 250x312px

>>35189964
Fucking obviously. Shit gets into everything. The dust cover isn't something I'm clutching to desperately, if that was your hope. The AR is more reliable, that's all I've got to say. No amount of tests will convince people like you.

>>35190007
>The AR is more reliable, that's all I've got to say.
Based on your extensive service the with 74 in the Red army? Or let me guess you were warsaw pact and still issued an AKM? LMAO.

>>35189964

Not the guy you're quoting but THIS

All this stuff is the reality of AR's in the field, I was in Afghan for the 120 days of wind where you would be coughing up dirt from deep in your throat all day, not the most ideal place for the AR platform

While I'm not saying that the AR is a jamomatic,yes the problems are exaggerated on the internet and many of them are caused by the military being fucktarded at time (still using CLP, old ass mags being reissued since the 90's) if I was given a choice I would have gone with something else

>>35184237
>Modular

>>35190031

a term often used by special forces LARPers and gun salesmen selling options to people who will never really use them

see also "tactical"

>>35190024
>that feeling when your teeth come together and there's that crunch sound in your head

I'm the guy you're replying to and I think the AR is still a good choice second only to something like the SCAR or something like a gun like the AK-74 designed to use 5.45, but that won't ever happen. We just need to be realistic about mud tests, AR's, and AK's. I'm surprised that AR/AK mud tests get so much meme magic but no one cites any of the dust tests from AK operators union where the AK's do much better.

File: 1438917013405.jpg (37KB, 706x706px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 706x706px

>>35184165
>people in this thread think that the ar is more reliable than the ak

kek. its a fucking piston gun. It fouls less, and self regulates gas. It can work in a wider variety of operating conditions, unless you're shoving mud in the action.

>>35190024
I was issued a saw in the army and only used clp on it twice when the metal was looking dry as fuck. My shit never jammed once. Only used a cloth and qtips for cleaning.

>>35190093

well given the chances of (a) being an idiot and pouring a wheelbarrow full of mud into your gun on patrol or (b) getting caught in a dust storm, I'm going to go with B on this one

AK for conscripts, AR for professional soldiers

You literally can not prove this wrong.

>>35190120
Point being that clp is shit.

File: C282KdSWQAElVQm.jpg (174KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 900x1200px

>>35190143

>AR being introduced at a time when conscription was a huge thing in the US

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyXndCxn9K4

AK fags bfto

>>35190600

the issue at the time was the ammo used and the complete lack of cleaning kits issued to troops. So yes, the M16 at the time was a peice of shit but that had more to do with Depression era planners trying to save every nickle and dime by using surplus artillery powder and the army trying to sabotage a weapon that wasn't produced in a government own factory

>>35189826
>>I actually have a good job that allows me to buy the toys I want
>Which clearly doesn't include a quality AR.
I love you Anon!

>>35190683

I used to have a "quality" AR, traded it for a M1A because I got bored of it

>>35184543
>AR family if you can afford it

Entry level ARs are cheaper than most AKs.

>>35190730

Because having a "good" AK in the U.S is rather new. Before most of what you got was Century abominations and parts kits from old decommissions rifles, these days the AWB is gone and Trump is in office so there is a huge surplus of guns from the Obama years left over and on the other hand conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are straining the new importers of "good" AK's

>>35190785
Hey thanks Captain Obvious.

>>35190629
They literally cover everything you just said in the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgP6Fea8zM8&list=PLj9u4Ts2NpEv4Fnwx2_ig4wVqiONfH1me&index=32

>>35184237
>because