The problem with the AK vs M16 debate is that most people are too hardheaded to have their opinion changed through discussion.

I admit to liking the AR15/M16 family over the AK, but I've also come to accept that both systems have their high points and their low points.

In a perfect world, we'd have that do-all,end-all weapon that's the size of a 1911 and can blow a MiG out of the air at 30,000 feet, but unfortunately we don't live in that world and no weapon can do everything.

(Well, some would argue in a perfect world we'd have no need for weapons of any kind, but I'm sure you understand my point.)

Why is it always an AK47/M16 debate. Both are outdated rifles. Sorry m16 fans, the platform has seen its days. And AK fans, why is it all the 2-bit nations have these while everyone else is pgrading, even russians se AK-74s and are trying to manufactre enough AN-94s to replace them.

Also, there are other rifles. Why not get into a Sig 550 series vs. Galil debate?

The AN-94 is a crappy design. I would be surprise the Russian would adopt it.

Apparently Spetznaz are using it, But then Ive heard so much BS abot them its not even funny anymore. I always thought the AK platform sucked as a rifle, it fit russian tactical doctrine during the cold war, but now its outdated.

Which Spetsnaz are using it because I can tell there no such thing as Spetsnaz. Spetsnaz translated in English means "Special Force". Which Russian SF (Alfa, Vympel, etc) unit are using the AN-94 because like the USA the Russian has many different type of SF.

The AN-94 is a crappy design because it's complicated. How many combat rifles do you know of that use pulleys. That's right the rifle use string pulleys to function. It is not durable enough for the battlefield.

The selling point is two bullets will hit the same spot to defeat hard body armor. I can tell you that's BS. The second bullet might he close to the same spot because when the first bullet hit the body it will react to the bullet. It would be impossible if the target is in motion. It will not defeat hard body armor. It's plain marketing.

How do you figure the M16 has "seen its days"? They are simply improving on them in better ways and reissuing them (hence the M16A2/A3 becomes the A4). It's not like the SCAR or XM8 are going to replace it.

Uh, because they are dirt fucking poor and the AK is the cheapest and easiest weapon to issue to people who have no military training. Russia is not as cheap, and thus improved up the AK-47 as the AK-74, just as we have been upgrading our M16 rifles.

I dont trust a rifle that craps where it eats, sorry AR fans. I also don't like the 556 but i know theres the AR-10 for that need. Id take an m14 any day thogh, beautiful sight picture and Rock-Solid Reliability. Nothing better. Only if the Military had adopted the 276, id love to see a m14 in that:D

The M14 is a fine rifle, but it is basically a select fire M1 Garand with a detachable magazine in .308. It is heavy, and uncontrollable in full auto. Have you ever shot an M14 on full auto? In three rounds you are above your target.

Now, by saying you prefer an M14 over an M16, you're basically saying you'd rather use a Krag-Jorgenson than a Springfield 1903. One phased out the other because it was superiorly built for combat use.

.223 ammo is lighter, the mags carry more, and it is far more controllable on auto. The A2/A4 fire in burst mode, which abolishes "spray and pray" and the gun is practically recoiless on semi. It is very accurate at normal combat ranges. It may get dirty, but what gun doesn't? Take some time out of your day when people aren't shooting at you and clean the damn thing.

I'm just trying to defend the ARs, because I'm a fan.

Im not a full auto type of guy, even with an m4 id be in single shot almost the whole time. I dont care if its heavy, I marched around with a garand in basic no problem. 556 may do good against most targets, but it doesn't deliver much energy at longer ranges, is poor at punching through cover,while a 308 would pierce that wall the enemie's behind with stopping power to spare, 556 is not not the greatest on body armor, vehicles, etc, and poor against drugged up enemies like we were seeing in somalia. And with an m1a, i could put a 4 round mag in and have an nice deer rifle:D

Actually, I think I'd prefer single shot too. Wierd how I would defend that :confused:.

A .308 does have more penetration, but who shoots through walls all that often anyway? A .223 can pierce soft body armor and the likes pretty easily, as can a .308. A .223 shatters and tumbles when it hits human tissue, so kinetic energy is maintained. It may be a .22 bullet moving at the speed of sound, but it has some punch to it.

Maybe you don't mind weight, but after a while my Garand gets a little too weighty more my taste.

I'm a recoil person. I prefer weapons with less recoil, and .223 fits that bill WAY better for me. The bigger it gets, the more chance I have of pulling a shot. A .308 is like a short .30-06, which can kick pretty decent. Heavy guns like Garands make this recoil less painful, but 4 pound Remington 700s are a different story.

It is clear that you prefer M14s, and I prefer both (but I'm sticking up for the ARs!), so no point in debating much further with this...