M16 or AK-47

Both because I’m not a poorfag. That being said, I think AKs are more fun.

Two of each please.

AR is objectively better by almost every metric, especially value on the commercial market.
However I think AKs have much more character and are way cooler and way more fun, and that's why I prefer the AK.

both

Just call 5.56 anemic. That's subtle enough to trigger artists whilst still perpetuating the meme

Both are outstanding products and rightfully among both the most widespread and influential guns the world has ever seen. I'm a sucker for slavshit so I'd pick the AK, armies would pick the AR if given the choice and for the gun owning individual both are good.

Well I my oh so humble opinion, I don't really care for either. I would probably go for some weird ass bullpup like an P90. But between those two the AR is argubly the better rifle. It's a little cheaper to produce on the small scale, has a far larger second market, and has a few features that make it a better competition gun such as drop free mags. But both guns will consistently land shots at 300 meters if remember sights exist, both fire a soft recoiling 5 and a 1/2 mm round with great ballistics, and both have been proven to work in pretty shitty conditions.
Tldr
Both are amazing, the AR is argubly a better choice. I like the AK and other oddballs more.

Just out of interest since our opinions overlap, what makes you like the AK personally?

Equate all versions of the M16 to the shitty version that didn’t have a chrome lined barrel

>AR
>fuck ton of parts, customization, and support
>you can get that shit extra gucci if you have the money or a basic $800 rifle will do well
>5.56 werks good
>changing parts and building requires very few tools

>AK
>good rifle and it werks
>good rifles can be had for $900 or a little more
>7.62 and 5.45 are good cartridges
>Wolf 7.62 is 17cpr
>building and changing parts requires a good bit of tools and knowledge
>there isn't a super crazy aftermarket like ARs

Both are good reliable rifles. ARs are just better in terms of aftermarket and ease of fucking around with it.

Sorry sonny, The Ak def. takes the kill count on poors and farmers being slaughtered!

Depends. As in you're wearing depends if you were alive back when either gun was originally designed. These guns are fucking old, get both if you have a desire to compare really old things.

Ak-47.

M16/M4 is a massive piece of shit.

Attached: 1544517788681.png (743x1088, 60K)

never woulda happened if we stuck with the m14. now thats a MAN'S rifle, tell you what

Either is fine. I'm energy weapon spec so i dont bother with either

Thank you, anons. I'll keep that in mind. I was actually considering what you said here while I was writing my first post, but it wasn't as well thought out as your post was.

It is difficult to operate a shouldered firearm within the confines of a vehicle. Their magazines may have not been in the best condition either, being in circulation for perhaps decades and banged up something awful during a firefight

Shithead, can't you fucking read? it was due to dust and sand.
M16 is a piece of shit.

Due to being incompetent POGs that signed up in peacetime and never bothered learning to maintain their rifles because they never expected to see combat until they literally drove into the wrong neighborhood by accident.

I'll give you my take. Between the two, it's like comparing something somewhat mediocre to hidden garbage. An AK is good if you don't mind spending $300 extra for a gun that will last longer and is more user-friendly (I recommend 5.45 or 5.56/.223 though). An AR is a good economy gun, but a lot of them are made with lesser quality metals nowadays (so the burger-kikes can get you to buy more of them). But if you know exactly what you're after in terms of parts and overall setup, they're good when you don't have a lot of capital to begin with. Between the two, I'd say a 5.56 AK is king. But that's because I would just take it to the range and have fun (in addition to my short attention span). And even the 7.62x39 variant would still be better because I could just put a muzzle brake on it, and it would have the same recoil impulse of a 5.56
youtube.com/watch?v=N0fTP5Jq-4o

Personally in terms of overall profile and potential, I prefer the HK-33 and it's variants. It takes the simple manufacturing techniques and user-friendliness of the AK and mixes it with the performance of the AR. And it's more of an appealing design in my tastes.

Why do you think Thailand and Turkey are big on using this gun (with Greece still sticking with the G3)? Because it's a good 5.56 compromise, when you don't have as much industrial capacity as your Western counterparts.

Attached: 1.jpg (852x480, 65K)

>last longer
Unsubstantiated claim
>user-friendly
Perhaps if you're wrong-handed, the AR's safety requires only your thumb and is available ambidextrous, unlike the AK
>they're good when you don't have a lot of capital to begin with
What an utter projection, it's your typical AK owner who chooses a shit stick for the money
>5.56 AK is king
The M85 > Mk 18, that's about it
>just put a muzzle brake on it
Still isn't shooting as straight as the AR, the bore isn't even concentric with the rest of the barrel
>HK-33
lmao, there isn't even anywhere to stick a red dot on it, fag

Both

I like AKs more, but I’m better with an AR

This. If AKs were as easy to work on as ARs, I’d never own another AR

One part slavaboo
One part ergo
One part mags
One part sights working better with my fucked up eyes
oh and one part just liking the overall shape and look of the things.

the washington post spouts bullshit about everything involving the US millitary. asswipes said our carrier fleet should be scrapped becase they cant engage ships effectively.

>i'm bored and i want to see
just watch porn like the rest of Jow Forums does.....

9mm vs 45acp?
hehehe

Attached: 1548074963644.jpg (386x395, 41K)

more boomer bait: ginger or maryann?

I'm sorry wittle snowflake, did I hurt your feewings? But seriously, stamped steel is stronger than aluminum. You see pics of ARs exploding all the time, but you only see the mag blow up on AKs. That's a trade-off for using aluminum in a gun. And one of the big reasons why Stoner tried to market the AR-18 after the 70's and get away from the AR-15. Stamped sheet metal. Besides, if you ever went on patrol for Boogaloo part 2, you'd be more likely to get into water than mud or dust.

Second, pinpoint accuracy is minuscule when it comes to engagement distances under 300 meters. The AK and AR are the same at that. As long as you don't get 30 foot groupings at 50 yards from a bunch of fucked up rifling.

Third, it doesn't take a lot to put a picatiny rail on HK rifles. Century and PTR get away with it all the time.

Attached: Another-Strike-Against-The-300-Blackout-Kaboom-864x648.jpg (864x648, 104K)

this is great logic, it has influenced my buying decision

>You see pics of ARs exploding all the time
The filename of the image you posted suggests someone stuck a round of 300 BLK into a 5.56 NATO chamber
>That's a trade-off for using aluminum in a gun
An AR-15's barrel extension is made out of steel
>engagement distances under 300 meters
Right, so you need to spend more on 7.62x39 ammunition just to achieve performance comparable to M193 at 100 yards and at less ammunition for the same weight

Cetme L is better in all ways than either. How is this still a thread?

AR 18 was made to be cheaper to produce and not infring on the patant he just sold to colt, not to make the bloody thing stronger

I'm probably side-stepping the conversation, but a lot of the AR fags get butthurt when someone has an opinion that doesn't fit their expectations. It's called Narcissistic Personality Distorder. A mental illness

>barrel extension
You still have the gas tube above it. Which creates another type of upper receiver blow-out. And not to mention squib loads either.

>but, i need the exact ammo i want
Sometimes you don't have the luxury of choosing your weapon or ammo. It's called flexibility and not being grandiose (muh whut iffs??) about it. I'm pretty sure rich boys like you haven't seen that up until this point.

>the washington post spouts bullshit about everything involving the US millitary. asswipes said our carrier fleet should be scrapped becase they cant engage ships effectively.
Washington Post is russian propaganda, right? They're just making shit up to make a rifle look bad.

Attached: 1529655421506.jpg (800x450, 44K)

As a rebuttal, there's a reason why it's cheaper too. Because it usually means easier to produce as well. Just as I mentioned with the HKs, and why I also said "one of the big reasons." I'm aware of the patent issue too

So let's see that footage of yours where a gas tube bursts and splits the receiver open
>squib loads
That's gonna fuck up any gas operated firearm, yeah

If you insist
youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU
1:30

No user, because if you get an AR in .22lr then the round will ricochet around in their skull and explode out their skull with a grapefruit sized exit wound.

Was the HK416 supposed to be a stand-in for an AK?

autistoid detected

ginger

Now are we talking historical accuracy? Cause with the shit ammo they gave the m16 that got many soldiers killed I'd pick AK. If we are talking general no major flaws I'd pick m16 for the ability to carry more ammo from it being lighter

For rifles designed over half a century ago, it's impressive that either are still being sold. Both are pretty good. I own a few of both and like them all. The thought of choosing just one as "best" just seems stupid. You might be onto something with that mental illness idea.

>shit ammo
M193 Ball was fine, the XM16E1 was just a springlet that lacked the chrome lining appropriate for humidity and mud. The M16A1 resolved the issues and worked fine after every branch adopted it by the end of the conflict in Vietnam. The M16A2, however, was a real POS with its clunky burst mechanism and lousy M855

Both

Attached: Choices.jpg (282x278, 23K)

>M16 or AK-47
>M16
No such gun.

Hypothetical:
You are facing a force similar to the UN mongoloids, wearing body armor.
As a civilian you aren’t going to be poking holes through it at range with the available ammo for either weapon. So you are left with areas putting rounds into places other than non-vital areas.
Do you pick the 5.56 or 7.62x39?

AK for style and precision
M16 for weight and 'merica

Both

I've watched many middle eastern gunfight videos. Under stress, many people fuck up reloading the ar-15. The AK-47 seems to have a more self explanatory layout.

Noticed IRL soldiers tend to run iron sights to stay lightweight.

Roller delayed blowback can't handle modern high pressure ammo.

Gonna need a source on that, otherwise eat shit

why on earth would you say such a factual statement in this thread

What the hell is so hard about reloading an AR
I like both platforms/profiles but the idea that it takes a week of training to operate an AR and five minutes of training to operate an AK is retarded

all the fudd in one post
10/10

Weight is a huge factor that you never consider until you pick up one of these IRL. I never want to have to carry something with a steel receiver.

AKM.
M16 is shit.

Attached: 1551558568248.jpg (683x1365, 189K)

good to switch it up

Two enemies are on the battlefield 600 yards apart. One has a AK-47, the other an M16A2. Who kills the other first, assuming both have the same shooting talent? Also assume an overcast day.

The AK-47 user's shot drops like a mortar after 300 meters. The M16A2 user's shot reaches the target, but the SS109 bullet has lost too much velocity and fails to penetrate the AK-47 user's flack jacket.

Ok retard

Are you ok retard?

neither, they fire uselessly at each other and do nothing

If they're military, they'll blast their ammunition away without hitting anyone.

The one with air support

m16 easier to reload
Ak easier to clean
These are the only metrics that matter btw

Stay triggered, GayK fanboy

So the habeebs legendary AK 7.62 put 3 rounds in and no kill huh? Which side are you arguing for again friend?

Are you asking if an ar platform rifle was supposed to be a standin for a totally different pattern rifle? .... Yes?

In an ak you always know if the mag is seated correclty but with an ar sometimes you need to give it an extra tap. The first mag through an ar always reminds me on range days when it falls out.

If an AK also explodes after the same test, the point of an AK over an AR becomes moot

Perhaps with crummy GI mags. Otherwise, a good Lancer mag will lock into place with a firm shove, no slap required

I see them not seat the AR-15 magazine all the way. It leads to double feeds, and tap drills.The AR-15 receiver obfuscated what the action is doing. The buttons and levers are not self explanatory. The AK-47 controls are infused with the action, and the action is more exposed. You can see what condition the action is in at any given time. You need to memorize the AR-15 reload drill to get it right.

Attached: AR-15 Action.webm (1920x1080, 1.69M)

They're both excellent platforms that have the benefit of long development cycles that few other weapons have. At this moment the AR wins as AK prices have been inflated greatly by import sanctions and the few remaining importers raising prices on quality foreign rifles to better sell their inhouse garbage.