01-04-2010, 11:44 AM
I have used both on military qualification courses and for me personally the M-16 is a much better weapon. Yes it is very sensative and not as sturdy as the Ak-47 but I couldn't miss with the M-16.
I would shoot 38's and 39's on a 40 shot Army course with an M-16 and I would only do 35 to 36's with the AK.
My personal favorite thing with the weopon is it is lighter and easier to move. The recoil was very easy to deal with and I could put more accurate rounds on target faster. To me that is all the matters. Hitting a single target in the same place is not the test of a good weopon. It is how fast you can move between targets in different locations that matter most.
I never fired either in combat. I was using an M-60 in combat so I never actually got a chance to use them when it counted.
Vllad
I would shoot 38's and 39's on a 40 shot Army course with an M-16 and I would only do 35 to 36's with the AK.
My personal favorite thing with the weopon is it is lighter and easier to move. The recoil was very easy to deal with and I could put more accurate rounds on target faster. To me that is all the matters. Hitting a single target in the same place is not the test of a good weopon. It is how fast you can move between targets in different locations that matter most.
I never fired either in combat. I was using an M-60 in combat so I never actually got a chance to use them when it counted.
Vllad