Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Oh lookie here, we have a weapons expert.
The Ak-47 had much looser tolerances than the M-16. Therefore, under actual combat conditions, it *worked*. Fully automatic, firing rounds heavy enough to cause serious damage, the AK-47 was and is a much more suitable rifle for the average grunt than the M-16.
The ole '16 deathrap claims victims every war. Remember those transport guys who got caught in an ambush. They were ready and willing to fight their way out- except for one thing. Their pos M-16 sand-magnets wouldn't work.
Ask the soldiers in Baghdad what ranges they are engaging targets at. 5m-50m would be the average.
I'm something of a weapons expert, yes. I currently own 42 (rifles, pistols, and shotguns) personal weapons, and I've fired just about every personal and crew served weapon in the military. I also own one of each and I prefer my M-16 over the AK any day of the week. The only reason I have an AK was because it was only $300 so I figured why not.
I also served in Desert Storm, cleaned my rifle twice a day and never had a problem with it. It fired everytime I pulled the trigger.
Now with that being said, I never claimed the AK was a piece of crap. It is a good assult rifle, but all things being equal, the M-16 is a better piece of equipment. It is lighter, easier to shoot, more accurate, and has longer range. Pound for pound you can also carry more ammo with an M-16 since the 5.56mm is almost twice as light as the 7.62x39 round for the AK.
And as far as the Looser Tolorances so it "worked" in combat statement. I saw that program on the military channel also.
Anyways like I said, I'll take an M-16 over an AK any day of the week. I base that on my experiance with it in combat and my use of the one I own at the range.