PHASR

[DarkOmen]

Well, as an owner of an AK, M16, and M14, i can tell you that reports of the inaccuracy of the AK are exremely over exaggerated. The average modern engagement is at about 250m... at this distance, all three weapons perform identically. I am going to stop including the M14, because the 7.62x51mm NATO round is a full size rifle round, unlike the 7.62x39 of the AK, which is meant to be a low recoil assault rifle round, not meant to go extreme distances. As far as the 5.56x45 that the M16 shoots and the 7.62x39 that the AK shoots, i would rather have the AK round, due to the higher energy. Additionally, the 556 creates a very very small wound channel, and has a much lower chance of causing a fatal wound then the AK round, which tumbles and fragments when it hits tissue.

As far as the effective range Seafort, that is a bad comparison. You are taking a full size rifle round that is generally fired from a rifle with a 24"+ barrel to an assault rifle round fired from a gun with a 16" barrel.... there is no comparison, because the are not meant to do the same job... if you are trying to shoot someone at 1000m with an AK, you are an idiot.

A better comparison would be between the 556 and the 762x39.... the effective range of the former is 450m, the latter 400m, again, mostly restricted by the weapons that usually fire the rounds..... not that much of a difference... However, the likelihood of a fatal hit at the extreme range is going to be much higher with the 762x39.

I can hit a human size target with my AK at 300m consitantly with iron sights. I can do only minimally better with my M16... however, again, the 100% reliablilty of the AK far outweighs the 1 more shot in 100 that hits with the m16, when it's working. The M14's size, weight and complexity make it a very ineffective assault weapon, even with a small collapsable battle stock.

If you take into account what the AK was meant to do, it excels without question. It is not a sniper rifle, nor is it a crowning achievement of technological prowess. It does what it is meant to do, fire a projectile, in the simplest most efficient way possible.

And the FN FAL suffers some of the same problems as the M14. It has some very complex internals, lots of small parts, that can get fouled easily. I would say it is significantly more reliable than the M14 ( however due to lower tolerances to prevent said fouling, and a shorter barrel, and cheaper made recievers, the FAL is less accurate than the M14), i would hardly call it second to the AK.

[Mikey]

I certainly can't argue with someone who has hands-on experience like Dark. He mentioned before I had the chance, a very important point... assault rifles were never intended to be used for engagements over 300m or so; rather they were intended to be be SMG's with heavier hitting power. Going around again, this is why the the M14 was replaced in GI - it's performance above and beyond the required role came at the expense of a heavier, less maneuverable weapon; heavier ammunition; and, well, greater expense.

[DarkOmen]

...heavier ammunition....

people don't take this into account very often, but it is infact very important...

A loaded magazine for an M14 (20 rounds of 7.62x51) weighs about 3 pounds. A soldier equipped with an M14 ( they actually use the M25/M21 now which is the designated marksman sniper version of the M14) carries 8 magazines; 24 pounds of ammo is a lot to haul around. A loaded M16 mag ( 30 rounds of 5.56x45) is only 1.5 pounds...