after world war II, all the nations analyzed the performance of their rifles, and they all found the same thing, that most engagments were within 200 yards, and the side with the most firepower usually won, even though the soliders had rifles that were accurate up to 700, maybe 800 yards. Now the Russians and Germans created the AK-47 and MP-44 respectively, which were designed with mechanized warfare strongly in mind, which called for a compact and reliable rifle, that could spray lead. The US fielded the M-14, a fine weapon but heavy and kicked like a maul on full auto. Then came the M-16, which is long but light, and had traditional accuracy, but traded reliablity and simplicity in exchange fo the accuaracy. So the AK-47 was spauned from combat exprience, while the M-16 is spauned from tradition.

Originally Posted by Bacara

after world war II, all the nations analyzed the performance of their rifles, and they all found the same thing, that most engagments were within 200 yards, and the side with the most firepower usually won, even though the soliders had rifles that were accurate up to 700, maybe 800 yards. Now the Russians and Germans created the AK-47 and MP-44 respectively, which were designed with mechanized warfare strongly in mind, which called for a compact and reliable rifle, that could spray lead. The US fielded the M-14, a fine weapon but heavy and kicked like a maul on full auto. Then came the M-16, which is long but light, and had traditional accuracy, but traded reliablity and simplicity in exchange fo the accuaracy. So the AK-47 was spauned from combat exprience, while the M-16 is spauned from tradition.

Besides your inability to spell do you perchance how something besides your breakfast to back up the little spiel about the M-16 being spawned from tradition? I'd really like to hear this explained in more detail or at the very least a link to the hand making your mouth move.

With BD on this. The M16 problems were early on when they were issued w/o chromed chambers and bad ammo plus instructions that they were self cleaning......wrong.

M16 Accuracy is fine. Back when I shot the USMC KD course of fire I had no problem dumping 10 for 10 in the Black at 500 yards. With both the A1 & A2 models. I have no problem now shooting the Army Course of fire.

The M16 has tighter tolarences needs to be cleaned more but is a fundamentally reliable and proven weapon. Where as the AK was designed pretty much to be "Private Proof"

BTW MP44 was a sub gun....believe you mean the Stg-44.

With 03. So long as you keep it clean, the M16 is an impressive weapon.

Oh, the MP44 was the Stg44. You're thinking of the MP40, 03.

Yeah it was called the MP for some political reason. Or something like that.

I stand corrected.

hitler dident want them to make anymore rifles, only machine guns, so they called it a machine gun and pressed on with production.

5.56 has a good point, weve proven before that we debate this for pages and than 5.56 is right...you definetly cant argue with his shooting exprience.

We're trying to compare a finely tuned sports car with 1 ton pickup here.

Both good at what they do, but not really able to be compared. Well,... not against one another.

There's people who drive sports cars and there's people who drive pickups. it's a personal choice.