[TrashMan]

AK 47 is the best gun produced to date.

And how do you know that?
For the record "because everybody knows that" is not a valid answer.

[AlphaOne]

American M16's more reliable and durable then the AK-47?? Hah. That is one of the most ridicolous things i have ever heard. Also the acuracy of the Ak-47 is much greater if you know how to shoot it. However the M-16's and the Ak-47 are designed with 2 different ideologies in mind. The ak-47 has its standard fire mode in fullautomatic. While the m-16 if i remember corectly has semi-automatic one-shot at a time tipe of fire.

The ak-47 is more suited for close range combat . Also the ak 47 can actualy puch through a brick wall while the m16 with its little bullets has a hard time getting trough anithing thinker then a standard wooden beam used for construction.

However as far as pick it up shoot it acuracy goes the m-16 wins hand down. However the fact that it has a a much smaller stopping power then the ak-47 and is generaly ore expensive to produce and requires constant manitenence makes it second best if not 3-rd best. And the ak-47 and its variants some of them improved versions with greater range acuracy etc. will continue to be the supreme weapons of choice.

M16 does have automatic fire. What are you smoking? 
It's one of the best automatic guns in the world in use in over 50 countries worldwide. But, then again, comparing anything in the hlpbb forums it's very much so around here comparing **** to ****. Everyone will ignore real word reality in here anyway because the ak47 is **** as well as the m16 in this argument.

Well the m16 does have automatic fire i never said it does not. All i said is that they are 2 very different guns. The ak-47 acts more like a machinegun . It also has superior bullet capacity to the m16. Basicly it has more rounds. If you fired and ak-47 you will notice that its default firing mode is automatic like a machine gun. When used in this manner it does not have to be acurate cuz all you need to do is spray a shower of bullets at the direction fo your enemies. While the m-16 has is automatic firing mode set for last if im not mistaken.

Also it is important to note that the ak-47 has a ***** of a recoil. At least older models of it had. since now there is a new variant of the ak-47 hell its not even called ak-47 but something else cand remember its name.

I do believe there is a variant of the ak-47 beeing produced by some arms manufacturer in america. It has all the good qualities of the ak-47 and more. It has improved acuracy and range without any of the shortcomings of the m16.

Also i dare you to try and jam and ak-47 when shooting it on the training course. ) At least the one i used went through several magazines of ammo one after the other and never missfired or jammed even once. Oh yeah and i dare you to subject the m16 to the same punishment the ak-47 can take and then just fire it. No overhaul no checking it for malfunctions no nothing.

[S-99]

While the m-16 if i remember corectly has semi-automatic one-shot at a time tipe of fire.

Why sure you think the m16 is automatic

Also i dare you to try and jam and ak-47 when shooting it on the training course. ) At least the one i used went through several magazines of ammo one after the other and never missfired or jammed even once. Oh yeah and i dare you to subject the m16 to the same punishment the ak-47 can take and then just fire it. No overhaul no checking it for malfunctions no nothing.

OR, you could use a revolver. Clearly the revolver is superior to the ak-47 because it'll never jam

[Rictor]

In his the defence, the original M-16A1s isssued in Vietnam were select-fire only. But that's been resolved many decades ago.

The ak-47 acts more like a machinegun . It also has superior bullet capacity to the m16. Basicly it has more rounds.

Nope, it's 30 rounds for each. Now, you can get drum mags for the AK, just like you can for the M-16/M-4, but that's a different story. Also, chances are that the Iraqi army and police would be using the AK-74 and its many variants, which use a 5.45 calibre round, not the older AK-47. Which means that the stopping power is not that much different from an M-16.

[achtung]

I'm one to believe semi-automatics are better than full-autos in most situations.  I have nothing to back this up other than preference though.

[Unknown Target]

Accuracy - the M16's 3 round burst capability occurred after Vietnam, when the US found that it would spend several thousand rounds of ammunition for each enemy killed. Army scientists found that accuracy diminished rapidly after the first three rounds in auto mode, so the gun was limited to that. Afterwards, kill count vs. ammunition spent increased dramatically.

[Polpolion]

Race is as discursive a phenomenon as national identity. Its basis doesn't make it any more "real"; they're both wrapped in impenetrable layers of arbitrary meaning.

Racisim is based, obviously, off of different regional ethnicities. You look at Africans, they have dark skin. Europeans have light skin, etc. This is a tangible difference. While beyond statistics, it doesn't mean anything, you can tell to within the continent (usually) what ethnicity people are by looking at them. Simply put: no; race isn't arbitrary.

Nationality, however, is almost always completely independent of race. You are the same person, whether you are born in Austria or Germany, or Belgium or The Netherlands. Nationality is based off of what nation you are from, and nations are usually not restricted to specific regions or types of regions. They are arbitrary. Look in the Middle East, for example. Great Britain pretty much blindfolded themselves and drew random lines on a map and those were the borders of the countries.

I certainly hope you get what I'm saying.

----

And about the m16 vs AK-47 debates, AFAIK, most of the M-16s are crap because they're unreliable arguments were made based on some of the first models of the rifle, which has come a long way since then.

[BrotherBryon]

The only real problem I ever had with an M16A2 in sandy conditions was with the buffer spring. Somehow sand had gotten into it but I was still able to fire the weapon with only a few jams. As far as I can remember that was the only time it ever jammed on me. I ran into duds far more often than jams and even those were rare. Now the original M16 had a lot of problems when they were first introduced but the later variants are rock solid. Now I haven't fired the AK-47 but I know that any weapon that spends more than a couple of decades in active service tend to suffer in reliability. I remember trying to qualify on old M-60 machine guns that had been in service since Vietnam back before they were replaced by the M-240. Those things were constantly jamming.

[Mustang19]

The problems with the early M-16s arose mainly from improper maintenance on the part of the soldiers (the M-16 uses gas-operated mechanism which needs more attention than the bolt-action system that boot camp instructors were apparently used to), design errors (which accompany virtually every early-model weapon), and the fact that the propellant manufacturer changed its chemical during the war without bothering to inform the army.

When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 had a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), the M16/XM16E1 had no chrome-lined bore or chamber. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover.

The XM16E1 was soon modified to the M16A1 specification. The revised rifle was finally given a chrome-lined bore and chamber to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the rifle's bore and recoil mechanism was re-designed to accommodate Army-issued 5.56 mm ammunition. Rifle cleaning tools and powder solvents/lubricants were issued. The Army ordered 840,000 of this version on February 28, 1967. Intensive training programs in weapons cleaning were instituted, and a comic book style manual was circulated among the troops to demonstrate proper maintenance.[4] The reliability problems of the M16 diminished quickly, although the rifle's reputation continued to suffer.[4] Moreover, complaints about the inadequate penetration and stopping power of the 5.56 mm cartridge persisted throughout the Vietnam conflict.

Sand, however, is something entirely different. The USAF refuses to send its F-22s to Iraq for fear of damage to its electronics. As much fighting takes place in the Middle East, sand is actually very hard on any kind of combat gear. No matter how careful you are, a lot of sand is going to end up in your equipment.

[Rictor]

Which begs the question: if the US was really seriously about getting the best equipment, why wouldn't they equip the IA with the G36, HK416 or some other weapon more resistant to sand. I would imagine that quite a big issue if you live in y'know, the middle of the desert. But I suppose all those campaign contributions need to be paid back somehow.

[Ford Prefect]

Racisim is based, obviously, off of different regional ethnicities. You look at Africans, they have dark skin. Europeans have light skin, etc. This is a tangible difference. While beyond statistics, it doesn't mean anything, you can tell to within the continent (usually) what ethnicity people are by looking at them. Simply put: no; race isn't arbitrary.

Nationality, however, is almost always completely independent of race. You are the same person, whether you are born in Austria or Germany, or Belgium or The Netherlands. Nationality is based off of what nation you are from, and nations are usually not restricted to specific regions or types of regions. They are arbitrary. Look in the Middle East, for example. Great Britain pretty much blindfolded themselves and drew random lines on a map and those were the borders of the countries.

Racism is not predicated directly upon physical attributes, but rather upon the identities that are constructed around those physical attributes. In a vacuum, there is nothing logically inevitable about the identity assigned to Africans by Europeans; it is a circumstance that arose from the one actual culmination of causally connected events of many conceivable ones. Don't get me wrong; the empirical distinctions between race and nationality would certainly be of great significance in a discussion that was framed differently. But to assess cultural constructs on the basis of their correspondence with "reality" is to assign far too much significance to the role of our individual (and rather Western, I might add) notions of empirical "truth" in the formation of cultural and historical consciousness. Basically, if you really want to discuss which is worse, appealing to the almighty, classical European External Reality is possibly the worst possible way to go about it.

[Polpolion]

Racisim is based, obviously, off of different regional ethnicities. You look at Africans, they have dark skin. Europeans have light skin, etc. This is a tangible difference. While beyond statistics, it doesn't mean anything, you can tell to within the continent (usually) what ethnicity people are by looking at them. Simply put: no; race isn't arbitrary.

Nationality, however, is almost always completely independent of race. You are the same person, whether you are born in Austria or Germany, or Belgium or The Netherlands. Nationality is based off of what nation you are from, and nations are usually not restricted to specific regions or types of regions. They are arbitrary. Look in the Middle East, for example. Great Britain pretty much blindfolded themselves and drew random lines on a map and those were the borders of the countries.

Racism is not predicated directly upon physical attributes, but rather upon the identities that are constructed around those physical attributes. In a vacuum, there is nothing logically inevitable about the identity assigned to Africans by Europeans; it is a circumstance that arose from the one actual culmination of causally connected events of many conceivable ones. Don't get me wrong; the empirical distinctions between race and nationality would certainly be of great significance in a discussion that was framed differently. But to assess cultural constructs on the basis of their correspondence with "reality" is to assign far too much significance to the role of our individual (and rather Western, I might add) notions of empirical "truth" in the formation of cultural and historical consciousness. Basically, if you really want to discuss which is worse, appealing to the almighty, classical European External Reality is possibly the worst possible way to go about it.

I never said that hating a nationality wasn't "real", I was commenting on how you said that both nationality and race were arbitrary terms.

If, as you say (from what it looks like, at least), racism is based on experiences, then the status isn't arbitrary. And by no means is the racism strictly an issue of empirical issues; doubtlessly, it contributed to it during whenever Europeans started these things, and to a much lesser extent after those periods, but the primary issue in the latter years were the supposed "unconventional physical appearances" that Caucasians regarded not-Caucasians with.

Nationalistic hatreds on the other hand are much more arbitrary than race issues could ever be. Most of the time the only differences in nationalities can be seen from the cultural standpoint, and even then its relationship is closer to region (and to a lesser extent race). In cases such as modern UK vs. modern US, pretty much the only differences are their respective cultures and histories. However in cases such as Ghana vs. US, there are a lot more differences, but nearly all of which can be attributed to regional culture and/or race (the US being the more diverse of the two).

[Woolie Wool]

Which begs the question: if the US was really seriously about getting the best equipment, why wouldn't they equip the IA with the G36, HK416 or some other weapon more resistant to sand. I would imagine that quite a big issue if you live in y'know, the middle of the desert. But I suppose all those campaign contributions need to be paid back somehow.

Are you sure the Iraqi Army would even be able to get G36 rifles? Last I heard, Germany didn't exactly approve of the war in Iraq.

[Kosh]

The USAF refuses to send its F-22s to Iraq for fear of damage to its electronics.

Which makes me wonder a few things like why make a war machine so delicate to its environment and why spend almost a billion dollars on stuff that is appearently useless in our current war? Can anyone say "white elephant"?

Which begs the question: if the US was really seriously about getting the best equipment, why wouldn't they equip the IA with the G36, HK416 or some other weapon more resistant to sand.

Two words: Campaign Contributions. Iraq is a goldmine for contractors, and they certainly are doing their best to cash in. Given the obscene corruption in the government/occupation authority, this should be no surprise to anyone.

[NGTM-1R]

Are you sure the Iraqi Army would even be able to get G36 rifles? Last I heard, Germany didn't exactly approve of the war in Iraq.

Probably. The Iraqis have put out feelers about buying four Type 212 diesel-electric submarine hulls and propulsion systems and equipping them with US gear vintage say 1985 otherwise, and Germany has so far been receptive to the idea. On the other hand, they've also made similar contact with the Brits about possibly buying a pair of Upholders, and even Sweden has indicated a willingness to fulfil a contract for three or four Gotland-class boats.

This would incidentally make them big kid on the block in the Gulf. The Iranians have a few Kilos that rarely ever leave port, but an Upholder would eat all of those Kilos for lunch, and a Type 212 or Gotland would have about an even-money shot at beating all of them. The local navies are long on ASuW capablity but most of them have no ASW capablity worthy of the name, and the only practical limit on the damage a submarine could inflict on all those fast-attack boats would be how long it would take the sub to run out of weapons.

[Rictor]

I doubt Germany would sell Type 212s to Iraq, or that Iraq would/could buy them. The Powers That Be in Washington are still acutely aware that Iraq is a Shia-majority country with no small number of religious types. And out-classing Saudi and the Gulf states, America's most reliable allies, would be a no-no. As for Iran, I actually think that their Navy is one of their best services. I'm assuming that they don't have great ASW capabilities because, hell, who are they going to fight? Right now they can spank around any other Gulf nation in terms of naval power (aside from, of course, the ever-present 800lb gorilla). And while Putin may not be rushing to sell them Amurs, I'm sure that if an arms-race were initiated they would find a way to stay competitive.

[IceFire]

Which begs the question: if the US was really seriously about getting the best equipment, why wouldn't they equip the IA with the G36, HK416 or some other weapon more resistant to sand. I would imagine that quite a big issue if you live in y'know, the middle of the desert. But I suppose all those campaign contributions need to be paid back somehow.

Are you sure the Iraqi Army would even be able to get G36 rifles? Last I heard, Germany didn't exactly approve of the war in Iraq.

Lots of countries don't officially approve of allot of things but they go on selling the weapons.

Read a great article about the M-16 on http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/  .  Not sure if the article is still around but it was a critique of the army and its need for rifles.  The M-4 apparently has had a hell of a time of it with the sand and allot of soldiers are fed up with the weapon.  M-16 has similar issues but apparently not nearly as bad.

Seems like the M-4/M-16 family is sort of on its way out performance wise but the US Army is standing firm behind Colt.

But yeah Military Industrial Complex always wins out.

[Kosh]

Here's something else to consider: How much does an M16 or A4 cost compared to a similair weapon (like the AK 47)?

[Rictor]

Somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 for a new AK-100 series and maybe $800 for an M-4. I'm basically pulling numbers out of my ass, but that's ballpark figures. Multiply that by 100,000 and it's still peanuts to the US military-industrial complex, who are used to using $100 bills as toilet paper (F-22, I'm looking at you). It's more a matter of prestige than money.

[Mefustae]

Probably. The Iraqis have put out feelers about buying four Type 212 diesel-electric submarine hulls and propulsion systems and equipping them with US gear vintage say 1985 otherwise, and Germany has so far been receptive to the idea. On the other hand, they've also made similar contact with the Brits about possibly buying a pair of Upholders, and even Sweden has indicated a willingness to fulfil a contract for three or four Gotland-class boats.

I never realised the reconstruction of Iraq's armed forces was that widespread. Got any links handy you can throw at us?

Anyway, back to the M16/AK-47 discussion. Bringing in the M16 to a region where everyone and their grandmother are already familiar with the AK just seems frivolous and obviously politically- and corporately-motivated. They're forcing the entire Iraqi army to retrain with a new rifle for no reason other than good PR and corporate profit. The way Iraq is heading, they might as well change the name of the Iraqi Army to ARVN, because that's exactly where it's all going to end up.