weapons question

[abtomat74]

Re: weapons question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zahir-Hussein
if the m-16 was more accurate then you didnt know how to shoot the ak.

Which version have you been shooting? The M16A2 issued to most U.S. Army troops hits for me at 300m no problem. The AK my old squad leader had was iffy over 75m. Unless you've properly zeroed your weapon and fired at various known ranges, STFU.

Yea, I got a kick out of that statement myself...no AK I have owned/operated was as accurate as any AR-15 I've fired.

Now maybe he was speaking of a Saiga in .308? vs an AR-15/M16

[dstewart1982]

Re: weapons question

1. AK-47
2. Beretta 92
3. M4A1
4. MP5
thats about it

[brianthebold]

Re: weapons question

Yeah.. that is the 92FS... Its a M9 Berretta. Dont you reconize the Slide on the gun? how its open over the top of the barrel.

The recoil of the .50 I shot was a lot worse than you are describing, it wasnt a light kicking rifle. It was more like if you stood behind a horse kicking you in the shoulder...the one I shot wasnt a compact either though, so who knows?

Oh, in regards to the damage estimate, I was being general, basically saying that one shot would take anyone out, anywhere, and the games model of "oh he just got shot in the guts with a .50, hes pretty close to out of commision" is absolutely ridiculous.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: weapons question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zahir-Hussein
if the m-16 was more accurate then you didnt know how to shoot the ak.



Yea, I got a kick out of that statement myself...no AK I have owned/operated was as accurate as any AR-15 I've fired.

Now maybe he was speaking of a Saiga in .308? vs an AR-15/M16

I think the best AK clone is the GaLil

LG SB

peace:)

[YoDiddy]

Re: weapons question

Which version have you been shooting? The M16A2 issued to most U.S. Army troops hits for me at 300m no problem. The AK my old squad leader had was iffy over 75m. Unless you've properly zeroed your weapon and fired at various known ranges, STFU.

Then you didn't know what you were doing with your "old squad leaders ak" or him, whichever was making a poor exscuse for an ak operator.

[abtomat74]

Re: weapons question

Then you didn't know what you were doing with your "old squad leaders ak" or him, whichever was making a poor exscuse for an ak operator.

Are you seriously going to make the claim that an AK(AK-47 or AKM) in 7.62x39mm is more accurate than any AR-15/M16 in 5.56mm???

Hell, why don't we go ahead and put the AK-101 up against it, same caliber...the AR-15/M16 still wins.

Not only does the AR/M16 have 25% more barrel(20" vs 16")(except M4, 14.5"), but it also has a superior design in regards to accuracy. Longer barrel increases fps, and increases stability.

Your claim would probably be agreed with by a few hundred people on the planet!...out of billions.

It is quite common knowledge the the AR/M16 platform outperforms the Kalashnikov design in every regard except for durability.

Don't get me wrong, I love AK's...more than the AR/M16 actually...but it is NOT anywhere close to the range OR accuracy of an AR/M16...or the 5.56/223 cartridge in general.

You can make any claim you want including personal performance tests...but ballistics tests in a controlled environment are a hell of a lot more scientific than any one or group of persons during personal range testing where there are far too many variables to alter the outcome.

Lastly, at this point I wonder if you have ever held anything beyond an AIRSOFT rifle to make such a ridiculous claim as you did. Perhaps the AIRSOFT version IS superior...lol.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: weapons question

Then you didn't know what you were doing with your "old squad leaders ak" or him, whichever was making a poor exscuse for an ak operator.

The four fundamentals of marksmanship apply to ALL small arms.
I qualify expert with M9, M249, M4, and M16.
A weapon is a weapon. If it requires that much "Kentucky Windage" or intuition to hit a target with an AK, it's already inferior.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: weapons question

The recoil of the .50 I shot was a lot worse than you are describing, it wasnt a light kicking rifle. It was more like if you stood behind a horse kicking you in the shoulder...the one I shot wasnt a compact either though, so who knows?

Oh, in regards to the damage estimate, I was being general, basically saying that one shot would take anyone out, anywhere, and the games model of "oh he just got shot in the guts with a .50, hes pretty close to out of commision" is absolutely ridiculous.

LOL. yeah .50 BMG will cut you in half

LG SB

peace

The four fundamentals of marksmanship apply to ALL small arms.
I qualify expert with M9, M249, M4, and M16.
A weapon is a weapon. If it requires that much "Kentucky Windage" or intuition to hit a target with an AK, it's already inferior.

Agreed, but, but the AK was a masterful design for the purpose it was intended, easy of manufacture for mass production, & to arm uneducated peasants to be used as "cannon fodder"

LG Sb

peace:)

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: weapons question

Agreed, but, but the AK was a masterful design for the purpose it was intended, easy of manufacture for mass production, & to arm uneducated peasants to be used as "cannon fodder"

LG Sb

peace:)

I was only referring to inferiority as far as accuracy.
I know the things get stamped out like matchbox cars. Few moving parts, step on them and get holes poked in your feet. Kill people if you leave them on the stairs. Yeah, pretty similar, actually. Hell, sometimes they get hawked to the same demographic, too.

[a_hamburger]

Re: weapons question

i plan on inherating my Granny's Over-Under Pump-Action Shotgun, and ive fired a 22. but thats not in teh game, unfortunatly.

[Kayback]

Re: weapons question

Are you seriously going to make the claim that an AK(AK-47 or AKM) in 7.62x39mm is more accurate than any AR-15/M16 in 5.56mm???.

You do realise that barrel length has very little to do with overall accuracy don't you? There are plenty of other things that vastly increase or decrease the performance of a firearm over the miniscule ammount of added accuracy a longer barrel produces.

Some of the things about the AK do detract from it's basic accuracy yes, the lack of tolerences when building the gun itself, the lack of tolerences when building the ammunition, the very short sight radius, the very basic notch and post sights, and the generally sloppy build of the full auto trigger groups do make the weapon slightly less accurate than the M16.

However, what are you trying to do with your rifle? Hit a dime at 500m? Then yes the M16 has a slight advantage over the AK.

Even on rapid fire I can keep all the rounds from an AK on an A4 page at over 150m.

If you understand your gun, and the sights, you can be pretty much a accurate with it as you want to be. I'm confident that I could get as good grouping with an AK at 300m as I could an M16. I just need to get a 300m range :) I did happily break clays with the AK at the 200m militarty range I once used.

The range I normally shoot as doesn't have a range longer than 150m. And that's actually shooting uphill across 2 ranges.



This is from shooting the same weapon the previous weekend.


The only time the M16 is "vastly superior" to the AK is when you are shooting at over 300m or on rapid fire. The 7.62x39mm kicks harder, and the muzzle movement messes up your next shot. After around 400m the AK round will still do more damage to the target than an M16's piddly little 5.56mm round.

Still can't access the MP5 pic. Buggerit.

KBK

[abtomat74]

Re: weapons question

You do realise that barrel length has very little to do with overall accuracy don't you? There are plenty of other things that vastly increase or decrease the performance of a firearm over the miniscule ammount of added accuracy a longer barrel produces.

KBK

I stand corrected. Barrel length will increase range, not so much accuracy. I would have mentioned ALL the other things you did...had you not already addressed them in your earlier post, so I didn't.

Specifically the iron sights. That alone is worth making my statement true that the "other" guy is full of it.

I have poor eyesight and couldn't hit an elephant at 300meters(well, maybe...never tried), and have only had 100m or less personal experience. No matter what range, or any of the AK's I've had the pleasure of owning, came close to my AR-15 in grouping. Same shooter, same range, different rifles. I even tried some good 7.62x39(SA, Norinco, S&B) a few times, not just Wolf.

I did make a point to mention personal testing falls way short of controlled testing though, YOU are probably a good shot regardless of the firearm you have :)

As for your equal grouping claim...please make the attempt and report back...I've never seen nor heard of an equal result and I often read about the attempts on various boards. So far it's never happened, regardless of the caliber of AK used(not counting 308). People report that it isn't half as bad as some people claim(the AK haters), but certainly not equal to their poodle shooters.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: weapons question

Interesting conversation. Just wanted to add my lousy 2 cents.

Ive shot an AKM-47, and while people like to say that you cant hit a barndoor with it, Ive successfully shot A4 target sheets at 100 metre distance, while I was 14 years old. Its been a long time since Ive shot a firearm, but from what I remember, AK-47 sights seemed to be the main issue. They just didnt feel good for shooting long range targets. The much hated M16 sights were much, much better for the job.

Just thinking, but if Ak47 rear sights were closer to the eye, than they are now, maybe accuracy would be increased?

[Kayback]

Re: weapons question

As for your equal grouping claim...please make the attempt and report back...I've never seen nor heard of an equal result and I often read about the attempts on various boards. So far it's never happened, regardless of the caliber of AK used(not counting 308). People report that it isn't half as bad as some people claim(the AK haters), but certainly not equal to their poodle shooters.

Maybe I was a little too over praising, or not really clear enough. The M16 will turn in slightly better grouping on, say a bullseye target, but on a man sized target, I can still definately hit as many times with the AK as I can with the M16.

The AK is a very capable weapon, and over most conceivable distances that you'd be shooting, equally combat capable as the M16.

The peep hole sight on the M16 is a slightl better system than the AK's notch and post, however the notch and post does work. The only drawback of it is that its very far forwards, and has a very short sight radius.

Muzzle length only has an increase in maximum range when comparing similar calibers. The 20 inch M16 will have a longer range than the 14.5 inch M4. However you can't really use it to compare the 20" M16 with the 16" AK. The AK fires a larger round, slower than the M16. This does have the drawback of a more arcing trajectory, but this also means more energy carried downrange, as well as less wind drift.

While personal experience may be a long way from a testing facility, unfortunately so is real life and the battle field. From a bench rest rifle shooters getup you might be able to punch all the rounds from an M16 through a .25" group, while your AK will be spread of a whole 2.5", afte running through artillery shells, dodging landmines, hiding from tanks, climbimg up three flights of strairs, and being shot back at, how relevant is the testing lab's results?

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm actually only a mediocre shooter.

While they aren't really side by side test results, I'll still have to organise that, these two targets were shot on the same day, at the same range, about 30 minutes apart. Both were offhand standing with the AK-47 and the Ar-15 on Semi.

True I only fired ten shots from the AK, but 9 A-zones and 1 C from 100m isn't bad, IMHO.


This is the M16's target. As you can see better "grouping" but I'm pretty confident if I'd fired more rounds from the AK I'd have pretty much the same spread. 17 A-zones, 8 C-zones.


Which one is more accurate? The AK got a better hit percentage.

I'll try for a side by side comparison over a longer range.

Ammo isn't really an issue here, both were shot with pretty expensive PMP ammo. Not quite match ammo, but a hell of a lot better than Mil Surp.

KBK

[Vasquez]

Re: weapons question

I've fired an employee....