Airman's ignorant rifle question

[Houdini]

The AK has the super sloppy tolerence in the chamber that makes it an extremly noisy weapon but the slop lends the benifit of dunking the thing in a mudhole and the pulling out and blasting off rounds.The M-16 has a very tight chamber tolerence which makes it quiet but get one grain of sand in the chamber and your getting double feeds and bolt over rides or just plain locks up.As a Gulf War vet I would have liked an AK but the accuracy of an M-16 is far to important to me.I really have no desire to close with someone who(if we are both out of ammo) can beat me to death with an AK-47 Battle Axe....the thing weighs a ton compared to our sleek little toy...LMAO!

[colmurph]

The AK-47 is a better weapon for all-around combat in my opinion because of the better terminal ballistics of the round. It is not deflected by light undergrowth like the .223 cartridge is and the weapon tolerates a lot more mis-use and abuse and still functions. The shorter barrel does not affect accuracy appreciably.
I've had people tell me that a 2" bbl S&W Chief's Special was a "Belly Gun" andthat I couldn't hit machus with it. I went up against some of these naysayers on a standard U.S. Treasury course while they were using Mod. 19's with a 6" bbl. I shot a perfect 300 with my 2" and the closest guy to my score shot a 288. It isn't the weapon that matters.........it's the shooter behind it.

[ArtySgt]

colmurph, excellent. Neither weapon is worth a damn if you can't hit what your aiming at. Carry a 2" belly gun myself.

[kmac7847]

Give me the M16! As far as a belly Gun I'll stick with my S&W 6904
small but powerful and it's attached to my hip so I never go without it. My Bushmaster XM15-E2S stands at the ready.

[Keith_Hixson]

Take the best of the AK-47 and M-16 and make a really great weapon.

I would think the technology is out there.

Keith

[Andy]

When I trained with the M-16 they had not worked the bugs out, jams were very common. After arriving in RVN still had the originals. If the AK is an accurate weapon at long range, I probably would have been a bolo. Course the ones I fired had been "dropped".

Like Keith, if your firing long range a .306 or .308 are good numbers - hence the M-60.

As far as belly guns, I usually don't go anywhere dangerous, like the shower, without my S&W .38 Chief Special.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Houdini]

Basically both weapons serve the purpose.Easily train civilians into highly qualified shooters.I myself prefer a heavy cliber round but I shot perfect with my M-16.I enjoyed every shot I took with that rifle and when the chance comes I will buy one.Perfect for home defense...LOL.As for belly guns the US says I can no longer carry a handgun for my misguided deeds as a youth...If I do get a chance to carry again it'll probably be a S&W .357 witha 6" bbl.Nice all around weapon.

The question I now have is....why wouldn't the goverment(needing firearms quick for Nam) just modify the M-14?It's a great weapon,albeit heavy,but a synthetic stock and some updates and that would be a super weapon.Just a rambeling for a tired soul...LOL...long day.