Obviously waaaaay off-topic, but a hell of a read, nonetheless:
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/ak-47-history-1110?page=all
Even in the 90s, after the M-16 was on the A2 variant, I'd heard that it was more accurate than the AK, but the Russian gun was reliable as hell -- it was said you could come out of quicksand and still fire an AK-47, while tiny bits of sand could jam the M-16.
Please keep politics out of this if you choose to reply. Just gun talk, plz.
I saw a show on one of those history or military channels listing the top 10 guns and the AK was in their opinion the unquestioned number 1.
I wouldn't go that far. However, the m-16 and all of its variants are unreliable and fire too small of a round.
hated the M16 a dusty wind could clog the most current version but you could keep center from 500 yrds away
I never fired an AK from that kind of range so I can't really comment
drove the AAV w/ M2 50 CAL and that would have to be my choice
Little hard to carry a 50 CAL into the field, though isn't it?
The rifle wasn't too bad even in Vietnam.. It was the glue in the magazines to hold the bullets in place that really jammed up the weapon.
"fire too small of a round" - that is by design, with special rifling it ''bounces'' around in the body causing most people to be fatally wounded but needing help, putting the enemy in a worse spot than just a KIA.
Stopping power has been an issue recently with urban warfare so a new round came out a 6.8 caliber version.
Also the newer M416s with the rod action (replacing the gas system, like the German G36) are as ''reliable'' as the AK-47 if more so AND more accurate.
Yeah, in the USMC, they described the 5.56 round as a tumbler. It would ride the bone lines in the body, accumulating muscle and other tissue, often leaving an exit wound 5x larger than the entrance wound.