sytasyn_syn Posted: July 16, 2008 Lets take a look at these to iconical weapons
The AK-47 has such a colorful history, to tell you the full story would require a novel and I don't have that kind of time. Same goes for the M-16, both have wonderful story's and many, many wars fought. Some against each other.
Lets first look at the Russian made Automat Kalashnikov 47.
The name:
1.Automat: means automatic (go figure)
2.Kalashnikov: the name of the creator/designer Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov
3.47: first finished product created in 1947
So...the AK-47 was adopted by Russia and god knows how many other country, along with damn near every militia ever to have the idea that they needed a change in the government. It has become a staple of revolutions and free thinking wackoes everywhere. It cheap cost and ability to fire under any conditions you decide to be in for any reason are the main reasons for it popularity. Shooting 7.62x39mm A.K.A. M43
it packs a nice punch and a good amount of individual's armor piercing capability. Which it being a full automatic weapon, spray+pray seems to be the general idea for this weapon. With a weight of lbs. it is heavy enough to let you know your carrying a weapon but not to heavy for children of many uprisings to handle. Having shot an AK-47 i have to say that firing it on full auto for more the 4-5 rounds if a waste of ammo. The accuracy of this weapon in single shot is bad enough...you'll be lucky to hit a man standing still at 200 m. Now with the recoil the way it is, firing a clip at a time is a waste of 25 rounds, with only about 5 hitting near your desired target. With there being many, many different versions of the AK-47, the true Russian Automat Kalashnikov 47 has a slow muzzle velocity of 700mps and only one attachment...its bayonet. This is a good weapon for certain situations but the capabilities are far less important and known then its name a image. In a twisted way, this is a symbol for freedom
Now lets explore the M-16 series. Created by Eugene Stoner the M-16 has four main version. Having the fully automatic A1 version to the widely used A2 which was made to be semi-auto due to higher ups finding full auto was a waste of ammo. However, it still has the 3 round burst option. The heavier but identical to the A2 in performance but not in looks. The A4 has a detachable handle/rear sight and the integrated railing system for handgaurds. Your M4 version is a shortened M-16 with a integrated railing system, shortened barrel, and collapsible butt stock.
These weapons have become the bread and butter for us in the Armed Forces. Tried and true for over 30 years this rifle lay's next to me as I write this post. Now using this integrated railing system there are so many different accessories and attachment for the A4/M4. Dont worry though, if your an A2 owner there are new handgaurds that make any M-16 able to attach a whole world of goodies and fun toys. All the way from a simple flashlight to a M203 40MM grenade launcher or the Master key Shotgun attachment. Or maybe you want a broomstick handle for a second hold point, maybe a mess of laser pointer and side sights or scopes? possibly you want your railing system to hold your cleaning kit? i think you get the point. Enough about how versatile the M-16 is, let speak statistics. With more rifling (one more twist) and other features, the M-16 accuracy is exponentially better. I personally can tag a person standing still at 600 meters. As well as pick parts of the person at 500m (but I am an expert riflemen). Even still the range of the M-16 triples the length of target tagging the AK has. The muzzle velocity is a respectable 850mps and a weight of the M-16 allows the war fighter to carry a fighting load with more rounds and less stress. 7.5lbs unloaded and the 5.56 rounds are easy to carry and store with out adding a shit load of weight
So now lets get to the gun bashing shall we?
First I got to say I don't hate the AK-47, i actually like the weapon but I swear to you if you keep telling me that the AK is more accurate the an M-16 and the military should switch over to it, imma find your most loved possession/person, soak it in gas, tie it to a tree and shoot flaming arrows at it. What ignorent fuck decide on voicing that opinion. I've seen more itellegence in buddist monks setting themselves on fire for world hunger!!
I need to say this and you need to read, learn, know, and love this next part.
The M-16 is just straight up more accurate at any distance and will never ever ever ever be beaten in the distance arena. simple fast and to the point. Next, the ammo that everyone that has no brain loves to hate...the 5.56(M-16 ammo). For christ sakes people, do you really think the US Marine Corp has gotten the reputation it has from using a gun that doesnt work? NO!!! It doesn't work if you don't know how to us it. If your aim is bad enough to were you need 3 shots of buck shot or eight 7.62 fired in rapid succession to take a man down then don't you ever join my Corp...NEVER!!! I have taken a man down and keep him down with once single shot from my M-16. I know how to aim and I hit him where I wanted to. If you can target a mans chest (which will make him stop moving long enough for a well aimed second shot if applicable)then you just go to hell, you go to hell and you die, or maybe just a range, but either way shut the fuck up about the "tiny and ineffective" 5.56. Besides, you got the three round burst option!
Now speaking of Muzzle velocity, the M-16 is 150mps faster the the AK and in a "who will shot first" senerio, those 150 meters could be your life...always a plus.
I will however give the AK the penetrations award for being able to eat up armor if weak or cover if thin. That would be a useful capability to have but if thats your stategy then thank God you got full auto!!
I mentioned that in a twisted way the AK-47 was a symbol for freedom...well the M-16 has become the symbol of an unstoppable fighting force that will fuck your face and not stop if you dont listen...like an OG pimp, smackin-a-hoe!! Now thats the knid of freedom I'd like to represent. I know I didn't cover everything in this post so if you have anything else to add(for either side) then feel free to comment.
71 Comments
Reaper308
well said.
another point about the rounds is that you can't compare them by shooting at a block of wood like the M16 vs. AK video on this site does. Yes the 7.62x39 penetrates, and the 5.56x45 doesn't... but you need to fire the rounds at actual flesh or ballistic gelatin to see the real devestation of the round. When fired into flesh or gelatin the 7.62 will make an entrence and usually exit wound traveling straight through. The 5.56 will make an enterence wound then start tumbling end over end causing damage not only the diameter of the bullet, but the height as well before exiting.
I say this to those people who say a 5.56 is just a .22 on a bigger cartridge... well you're right, it is, but the bigger cartridge is what projects the small projectile as such high velocities and makes the round so devestating. like sytasyn_syn said, an accurate shot at center mass with either round will take a man down, but it may be harder to make that accurate shot with the AK.
rodeocowboy
Just got back from Iraq 2 1/2 weeks ago. My battle buddy had to shoot a guy three times with his M4 to get him down and the guy still lived. 5.56MM NATO is garbage, in my opinion. I manned an M2 the whole time, so that was never an issue for me.
With that said, I trained Iraqis on the use of their AK47's. I would have to say that they were junk as well, except they shot 100% of the time - everytime. The problem with them is that there is no fine adjustment on the front sights and zeroing them was absurd. But, like I said, they shot everytime the trigger was pulled, unlike the junk we call M4's and M16's.
Shakleford
Thanks for your service, brother!
samD
Thank you so much for your service.
We really appreciate it.
samD
photobear6
Glad to see you made safe and sound. One of the biggest problems with the 5.56 round is it was designed for a barrel with with somewher around a 12 to 1 twist so that the bullet was on the edge of stability. That way when it hit it was suppose to tumble causing massive tissue damage. But alas some REMF in the quarter master corp. new better and accured all the weapons to a 7 to twist. NOTE these dimensions are as close to that I can remember till I can find the article again.
sarge225
If the greatest millitary force in the world uses the M-16, then I guess you know who the winner is.
Death from Above
M16 hands down is the weapon of choice vs Ak.
The Ak is the poor mans choice because of price. Just look at some of the wafer board stocks the east is making. They are a good weapon if you dont care who your target is. They are the poster weapon for the terrorist.
The M16 is accurate, deadly, and highly effective. My son is in boot camp at this time,week 2, in Ft.Benning Ga. There is no other weapon in the world I would want him to carry as a primary weapon other than the M16.
sytasyn_syn
Well I would love to know where all those AK fans are now....still waiting
Snake
Ak-47 is the soviet gun of choice they can take a beating. and also the ak is russia's way of saying dont mess with us.
m-16s jam alot even though we use them in the armed forces i support them in there decisions.M16 is americas way of saying that we need somthing new.
sarge225
M-16 is the united states weapon of choice, they are acurate and deadly. Also the M-16 is Americas way of saying don't mess with us.
AK-47's are inacurate, they are cheaply made and overall pieces of shit.
the AK-47 is a countrys way of saying "We have a poorly trained army, we have no money, and we really just want to fire a bunch of ammo and hope we win."
rodeocowboy
Although they are very accurate, the 5.56MM NATO is certainly not deadly when compaired to the .308 (or 7.62 NATO). Thank God the Army is now looking at 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds. The 5.56MM is just to tiny and way too fast, although very, very accurate.
fordvg
Glad to see you are home safe and enjoy the site. Thanks for serving our great country. Semper Fi
brad
Im an ak fan myself.Several of my friends own various ar-15s from diffrent companies,dpms,colt,olympic arms.When we go to the shooting range their ar's jam up non stop while my ak keeps going round after round.I have no doubt that ar-15s are more accurate but but that does you no good if the thing is jammed up.As far as aks being pieces of shit,i would like to see someone shoot an ar-15 or m-16 that has been dropped in the mud.It seems as if it only takes a little grit,dirt or fouling to stop an ar-15.Well i hope this dosent make you guys hate me too much.
USMCFiscella
I have used both ak and m16 no contest AK is the champ. When society melts down i want an ak-47. The us military uses m16's for a lot of reasons, none of which invole combat.
It is very simple 5.56x45mm wounds more than it does kill, thereby taking 2 people out of the fight instead of one(one who is wounded and one to treat him) An AK round 7.62x39mm is meant to simply slay bitches.
You can't tell me that recycling propellent gases back into the upper reciever is the right way for a rifle to work. That is exactly what an m16 does. The AK uses a gas piston system that greatly reduces the chances of a malfunction leaving the majority of the fouling on the piston head. less fouling in the operating group=more reliable
The sand in iraq is like a fine powder putting CLP on an m16 attracts all kinds of dust to the bolt and with the tight fit that the m16 has it will always cause issues. The AK is built with looser tolerances so sand is less likely to cause a stoppage.
I have shot both and i have cleaned both. The only thing m16 has over the ak is range,a normal firefight is usually never outside of 300 meters anyway.
So everyone whos says an m16 is a better operational weapon is dead wrong
M16= High upkeep bitch
AK= Practical weapon of mass destruction
AK better now and better forever.
Death from Above
Then why did the Russians go to 5.45x39 on the AK-74?
USMCFiscella
The russians discovered that they too could also save money and get some extra distance by scaling down the ak round from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39
its all about money
uv0560
But I have to agree. Shot for shot, the AK is a better survival tool with a higher bullet caliber and more consistent functionality. I hate to say it because the AK is not an American product and it represents many of our most stern enemies. You'd think Colt would take the lessons learned from the AK and incorporate operational improvements to the M-16.
Our troops deserve better.
Reaper308
the same reason that we went to the 5.56.... because you can carry more ammo and the smaller rounds do the job.
USMCFiscella:
"The us military uses m16's for a lot of reasons, none of which invole combat."
What do you mean?? the m16 and m4 are still primary infintry weapons being carried as I type this.
USMCFiscella
Hey i know im in ramadi right now typing this to you with my m16a4 with acog right next to me.
when i say The us military uses m16's for a lot of reasons, none of which invole combat." i mean
1.At this point they are familar with them. We have all grown up seeing it as the good guys weapon no matter how badly it performs-- propaganda issue
2. 7.62x51 to 5.56x45 was an attempt to save money on ammo it made the infantryman less lethal.----saving money
Just these two reason show that it was not designed towards combat.
The very fact that it was originally issued in vietnam as a "self cleaning rifle" really makes me ask who at that time was making these terrible decisions?
Does that help clear up the confusion in what was typed?
s8lorenzo
In basic training I qualified well with the M-16A1,I really loved the way it performed on the range. As far as accuracy,flawless. reliability superb! Any caliber within the centermass area is deadly at close range. Any weapon should be treated with great respect in retrospect of why they were manufactured in the first place. I doubt very much when Kalisnikov set out to build this weapon (we know today as the AK-47)He wanted to be remembered as the inventor of a piece of shit Gun. The Russian's as the American's have just as much pride in their workmanship and beside's we all know who make's the best vodka.
PS. It will definately be my AK I will be pulling out for the Apocalypse
greasypaws
well i cant speak for an m16 other than the manufacturers are proud of em' for the money they want a person with some mechanical skills and tools plus a reasonably priced parts kit ie: 150 to 250 can build their own ak i choose to play another way using the same 30 cal round as the ak i have a russian sks the predecessor to the ak no full auto no pray and spray crap aim and shoot even my chinese is reasonably accurate but to each their own to include the size of your wallet
dystubenrauch
i would still take the ak to war over the Mattel 16 it's the most reliable rifle. it responsible for more death than any other weapon system ever made. and also yes 5.56 may do damage to flesh, but if there behind a car or wall good luck hitting them with .223 the 7.62 is not the best round. have you watched top ten combat arms the AK is fist and the M16 is second Richard Venola knows what he is talking about.
support our troops where ever they are!
kiran8654
Well, our infantry doesn't have a choice in what they carry.
In my world they would, and they would keep their weapon and take it home with them.
Special operators that get to chose, often don't chose the M4 variants.
I also own both, and have carried both in Iraq. (one at a time).
In close quarters the AK is definetly better. It doesn't jam, and it has more stopping power.
The AK is heavier, and a bigger pain in the butt.
The AK round is a pig, and not good for distances even in a very good quality weapon. But in a good quality AK, and they are out there, you can hit a dude a 300 meters.
Realistically you are not going to hit a dude at that distance in a fight. A REALLY good shot would be 150 meters, for an M4 or for an AK.
M4 is lighter, more accurate, and a good one won't give you problems if it is properly maintained. Godwilling you have the time and ability to clean it. If you are not returning every day, and after every battle to a secure base the M4 might be problematic.
greasypaws
well i agree about the ak and i also like a gun that i can build myself
kiran8654
The good AK's are Russian, Yugoslavian (from when that country existed), Bulgarian, and Romanian.
The Bulgarian ones are heavier, but they are milled not stamped metal.
The Crappy AK makers are; Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Iran. (and I am told that the countries that now make up former Yugoslavia now make crappy AK's)
China is somewhere in the middle. I have a Chinese AK and I have fired thousands of rounds through it and it has never jammed. I can't say that for my M4, my M14 or even my FN FAL. Also, I can hit a man sized target with my Chinese AK. Something to keep in mind if we ever have to fight them fuckers.
clintlebo
Why does it matter who thinks which weapon is best? Each weapon was built for a purpose. Maybe the question should be more specific. An example: Which weapon, between the AK-47 and the M4 is better at Close Quarters Combat?
Furthermore, what if the question was: which is better? mossberg 500 or Remington 700? I could assume that the question was leading to home defense in which case the mossberg would be superior if the perpetrator was actually inside of my house. However if I saw him coming towards my house at 400 meters, I would definitely take the Remington 700.
To try and tie it together with the AK-47 vs. M4 question: There are many great points by the authors of this thread. It is very true that most of the reliability lies in the individual's training in both the act of shooting and the act of maintenance. There are pro's and cons for each rifle. In either case, I want to be the guy that sees the enemy first, so I can attack with whatever weapon I have.
clint
sarge225
training IS everything. whatever weapon I have is the best
mrs. smithandwesson
the best weapon is the weapon that you have to greet unwelcome visitors.In our house it is the Mossberg 500 pumpgun loaded with slugs and buckshot that hangs above the front door.go ahead knock on my front door!if i dont recognize your knock or your vehicle CLACK CLACK who's there?
Death from Above
This brings us back to the subject of bullet placement/timing
jjdog2
i have shot both weapons while i love the m-16 the ak's and sks's are for dirt and sand lovers if ya cant keep hold of your weapon plain dropsies in the dirt then take the ak/sks.me i hold onto to my ppe
(personel protection equipment)with both hands!if i fall it still is in my hands and not the fucking dirt.i do shoot with people that have ak's
but to my amazment none can hit anything beyond 200 yards.my ar-10 with scope at 400 yards plus.placement is everthing and i dont like wastin money on going bang bang bang.GOD BLESS AMERICA AND MEN WITH GUNS.
sytasyn_syn
but i got to say. i still get a hard on by seeing a hole in a targets head after i shot at it from 500m away...it just feels good ;)
Steve700
Both are highly respected firearms by their users, the AK has reliabilty and hitting power, but the M16 has accuracy and handling. Personally i would take an AK into the jungle or any harsh environment, but hands down the M16 in urban areas.
Nutty Basterd
Military AK-47s are selective fire, just like an M-16, sooo yea you can do one shot or 3 round burst or full auto hmm... that sounds like it has one more option. If I am incorrect on this it would be only that it has semi and full, but I'm pretty sure it has all three, either way leaving out that it is selective as well does shoot down one point made as the M16 being better oh and on the consumer market you can get all sorts of accessories to add pictanny rails, vertical fore grips, red dot sights, holographic sights,etc etc, basically an AK can be outfitted with everything the M16 can even the smaller .223 round so I'm not really seeing who the winner is but I am seeing that there's a lot more to consider even like clintlebo said it might just come down to in which scenario is which gun better. To me this sounds like a contest that would take a lot of people and not just one person's opinion. I have not shot an AR-15 but I am still interested in them. I wouldn't trade my AK for anything though.
sytasyn_syn
....And that proves?
Nutty Basterd
that you left out an option for the AK that made the M16 look like it had another advantage over the AK
mr.rogers
I must say that both guns have their advantages....I would'nt part with my ar tho. I can do 550 meter shots in the center of a 12 inch pie plate...consistently. 1 shot 1 kill...and if i choose too, remove the custom upper and put on a ak 47, beau wolf 50, 6.8 spc or any number of uppers pullede from my ruck. Apocolypse now you see me now you don't! Sorry probably a little dramatic.
wilcam47
m16/ar15's get dirty real quick and start to jam up aks keep firing i have both and eventhough an ar15 is fun to shoot it has more problems than i have ever had with my ak's
stewbaby
You have to remember that each rifle was built for different situations and to different specifications. First off, you can't rag on the AK because it's inaccurate, because it was never meant to be accurate, and anyways there are some manufacturers out there that make AK clones that actually out-perform the M16 accuracy wise. The AK-47 was built as an assault rifle, not as a battle rifle like the M16, so it's supposed to fire fast, hit hard, and be RELIABLE, unlike the M16 that (now) is built for accuracy alone (if you don't count the bureaucracy and politics involved in it).
The ammunition seems like it's always catching shit on both sides of this argument. Yes, the AK-47 DOES use the more powerful 7.62X39, while the modern M-16/M4 uses the less-powerful but cheaper 5.56X45. You forget, though, that the newer model AK's (AK-74, many Chinese models, etc.) have switched over to the 5.45, which is much cheaper and has less recoil. Another important fact that is very often overlooked is that the M-16 was ORIGINALLY a 30-06 (or .30 carbine to be EXACT), which is much more powerful than the .223 currently used. So the caliber argument is actually meaningless, seeing that judging the first rifles, the M-16 was stronger, while between the "new" rifles the AK (even the 5.45) is considerably stronger than the .223 used by the M-16/M4.
Reliability is one of the most important factors to look for in a weapon of any type, but especially when going to war. I personally own both rifles, as well as an M-16 chambered in 30-06 and a post-ban WASR-10(which I HIGHLY recommend AGAINST), and have shot thousands of rounds downrange and used both while hunting whitetail in Southern Georgia. The AK-47 is an extremely reliable rifle, and out of near 10,000 rounds through it the AK has never once jammed up or failed in any way. The M-16 however has jammed up numerous times from semi-automatic fire after less than 100 rounds, and is currently out of service because of these failures. If you don't believe me, ask one of our men and women that were overseas in combat. If they aren't still enlisted they will support the fact that it very easily jams and WILL get sand and debris in the rifle, no matter how you try to prevent it. If they are still enlisted however they will testify that the US military uses the most advanced and best equipment in the world. Try and guess why.
One thing that I would like to point out is that many high ranking officials in the US government have attempted to sway the government to use a more reliable, better all around rifle. They did tests on the M-16 and M4, as well as rifles like the H&K 416 and the XM8, both independently and by our own US army. The independent tests (the only ones we can trust due to lack of cooperation of the Army) showed that every rifle put up against the M4 and M-16 was more reliable, accurate, and cheaper than the current service rifles, not to mention the higher rate of fire possible and more ergonomic design for a more "natural" feel. The XM-8 is even a modular gun, meaning that it could be used for an abundance of combat situations(service rifle, sniper, as a LMG, and even in close-quarters), which would save the government millions, if not billions of dollars a year. The military almost immediately scrapped ALL of the new rifles, saying they did not meet the standards or perform at the same level as the M4. If you do the same tests as they did, under the same controlled environments and situations, you will see that the military's claims are all a load of shit. The true reason they don't want to switch over is money. The main arms companies that produce the M4 for the US military are metaphorically "in bed" with the government, and certain people make millions off these sub-par rifles that are sold to our troops, even though they know there are many better rifles out there that, if put into service, would save many lives over in Iraq and abroad. It is all centered around money and power. But all of this is a completely different topic.
I won't tell you what to think, or even what I think of the two rifles. They both have good and bad points. It's a personal choice what you prefer, but look at the facts to decide, NOT what the governments tell you is right.
Warner357
I like both the M16 and the AK47 even though Iv never shot either gun before, but I like the looks and sounds of them both and would like to own 1 of each. :D
mr.rogers
The beauty of the ak is that it does'nt have to be clean to shoot reliably(within reason). When I was over seas if I was'nt eating sleeping or sh**ing I was cleaning my rifle. My rifle was spotless, had the right amount of juice, did'nt misfire. But...you could tell when it was going too, the more you fired the tighter it sounded. It was just as important if not more to have your magazines properly maintained. A good friend of mine used to say: "proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance". He called them the 7 p's.
skeeter51
A well built M16 is way better than an ak47. problem is or used to be that the M16 didnt have the best design and jammed a lot. i have an AR15 purchased from Gunsmoke Enterprises and it was expensive but a very reliable gun that would outperform an AK anyday. the problem was that that AR15 was priced in excess of $1500 and my AK was $400. If i had to bet my life on a gun however, it would be the M16/AR15.
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."
Thomas Jefferson
stewbaby
Every M-16/M4/AR-15 I've ever shot has jammed up eventually. It's an ok rifle in itself, but not reliable enough to be a primary weapon. A B.U.G. is even more reliable. If you pay attention to the news and current events the Army has even condemned the rifle for it's "reliability" and power, or lack thereof. One soldier has actually gone so far as to make an entirely new rifle based off of the current M4 used in our fine military. It's designated the Barrett Model REC7 M468. It's basically an upper conversion from the current M4 but it has a completely new firing system, and uses the newly developed Remington 6.8mm SPC, which is essentially a .270. It's more powerful than the .223 and the .308, more accurate, and much more reliable than the M4. It's even being used by a handful of our troops overseas and is going through the upper brass to be approved to essentially REPLACE the M4. The full rifle is around $2500 USD, or $1500 USD for the upper half, which will fit ANY current AR-15 or M4 carbine. It comes with a 16" barrel, but can be fitted/ordered with a 22" or a 12" barrel(12" for LE/Military as of this post, not confirmed for civilian use. Yet.) I personally love the "new" rifle. I've shot it and can say that it's more powerful and accurate, especially at longer range, than both the AK-47 and the M4, with a little less recoil than the M4. Full auto is EXTREMELY satisfying and STILL more accurate than both rifles. A skilled marksman can keep a tight pattern with it on automatic at 25-50 yards. I say look into it. It's on the Barrett website.
mr.rogers
what it eventually comes down to is that these are differant calibers and they perform differently. If you want to have it all you can, thats the beuaty of the ar. You can build it to any of the following calibers not to mention the custom built ones that barrel makers will do for the right price. Here they are: 22 long rifle, 9mm pistol, 7.62 ak 47, 5.56 up to 77 grain with magazine tolerance, 80 grain long and sleek, but single hand load only, 6.5 grendel, 6.8 spc, 50 beau wolf and the 300 fireball, just to name a few. Not to metion with a little massaging you can have a .460 pistol round,some are even trying the good old .45...all can be utilized on this platform, hence your barrel maker and gun smith if you choose. The point is the possibilities are only limited by your imagination, and ability to fabricate. They also have modified the ar to where the're gas piston operated instead of gas operated.
mr.rogers
If you look at the bolistics of the 6.8 spc and the .308 you'll find that the .308 is more powerful. As for the gas powered piston being more reliable it is...anytime you take hot gas away from the bolt area your bound to have better reliabilty. I was shooting with my cousin often and he is getting good results with his ar 10, not only that but he is able to match the minute of angles that my ar does. Total spent on good parts and scope...$1100 bucks. I am pleased because this rifle does sub moa.
neody_redneck
Here's my thoughts on the idea. I'm on the army's National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, CA... we use both of these weapons out here and i'll tell everyone now that if you want to end the gripe once and for all go out and buy you an HK 417.... That way you get all the pro's of the m16/m4 family but you are firing a 7.62x51mm NATO round... it also has semi and full auto firing capabilities... and instead of the gas tube styling that has been a major downfall for the m16/m4 it carries the gas piston style of the AK-47.... if you want to check it out just go to HK's site and see for yourself
tedpo
I live in northern Cal is that gun ok in this state
Reaper308
no. semi auto rifles must have a fixed mag with 10 rd. capacity. don't even think about a FA version.
fordvg
POF makes a gas piston rifle in both 5.56 and 308. the 5.56 is POF-416 and the 308 is called the POF-P308. I have pictures posted of the rifles here on the site to look at.
tedpo
In the Army we used the M-16 and it is ok. The guns that they use are from 1965 and even thin they had ther problems. Dont get me wrong whin being shot at I would rather have the M-16 over the AK-47
sytasyn_syn
Nor Cal? Good luck even getting any gun. Cali sucks for gun laws