Another point that I've made when debating M-16 vs. AK-47 (using these two basic models to simplify what could be a very detailed and technical discussion) is that armies which use the AK-47 historically suffer much higher casualty rates than armies that have used the M-16 family of weapons.

Of course there are a lot of related factors such as training, air/armor/artillery support, etc ... but it's one fact that should not be ignored.

Before the rifle it was the musket, before the musket it was spear and stabbing sword. Technology and needs drive the weapon. I see Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle being used like there was a real difference. To an infantry man its his weapon. The M1 of WW II was as far ahead of Springfield as the Ferguson rifle in the Revolutionary War compared to the India Pattern Brown Bess. I could continue with the Baker Rifle issued to British skirmishers in the Napoleanic war and the advantage it gave them but why run it into the ground.

I will just say that having jumped out of slicks with both an M-14 and the M-16 and humped the ammo for both I much prefer the M-16 to the bigger caliber heavier weapons.

I have seen men shot with 50 cal rounds 7.62, shredded by the ball berrings of a claymore, shrapnel, and M-16's. They all had the same thing in common, "They were Dead".

hey guys, I think that the comparison between the M16 and the AK47 should be a different topic.

I dont ask people if they like a thompson submachine gun or an MP5. The MP5 is from another generation, the comparison is unfair.

To be fair, we would have to ask:

"if you had a group of soldiers. Would you equip them with AK47 for 20years. Or would you give them WW2 era weapons for 10 years before issuing them M16 for another 10years.

That would be fair. The Ak47 was on the field way before Stoner's baby. Stoner was a genius, and the M16 is a wonderful rifle. But would you wait 10 years on the battlefield waiting for it?

I don't really think that's an accurate comparison. You don't see modern armies arming themselves with K98 Mausers, but you do still see them using AK variants so why not compare them? The M2 .50 cal has been in action for most of this century, so does that mean we cannot compare it to modern machine guns? Of course not. How about the 1911? It's been in action for about 95 years now, so does that mean we cannot compare it to modern handguns? No, and the reason is because it's still being used. The AKS-74 looks and feels like an AK, but it is a current and relevent design, just like many AK variants. When a large portion of the world is still using it, then by definition the AK is not outdated. Many militaries have made the decision of using one or the other, and not all have went for the AR rifles, so that discussion still matters. I personally love the AK 74 series and am a huge fan of the Galil. Many AK variants do the job of killing just as well now as they did when they were invented. Comparing standard issue weapons for modern armies to WW2 weapons.... I dunno that would be like saying the AR design is outdated because it came out in the 60s.

People seem to have forgotten the AN-94.

I think an AR with a PWS type piston system chambered for 6.5 Grendel would be a good choice out of the currently available rifles.

the best assualt rifle in the world is the L85A2 (SA-80A2) it is small, fairly light not that much recoil, low muzzle climb, same stopping power as any other 5.56 calibre rifles and comes standerd with 4x SUSAT sight and its user freindly. Trust me i use it.

Originally Posted by LeMask

That would be fair. The Ak47 was on the field way before Stoner's baby. Stoner was a genius, and the M16 is a wonderful rifle. But would you wait 10 years on the battlefield waiting for it?

The M-14 was really nothing to sneeze at...

I have shot m16a4/m4 and also a ak47/sks. I admit that a ak can be addicting. You feel the power behind a ak and I love the sound. But when it comes to doing controlled harm I would take a m4 with a acog over any rifle.