(click on image for larger version)
The AK-47 design and looser tolerances makes it work well under the worst conditions. This also tends to make it slightly less accurate and especially at a distance. The M16 platform is much lighter and it’s ammo is lighter. It is more accurate and more versatile.
The problem with this argument is the M-16 naysayers dislike the M-16 and would dislike it even if it was perfect in every possible way.
Which would you rather have in combat a more accurate lighter gun with the added advantage that you could carry more ammo OR a heavier, larger less accurate gun with less ammo but you could drop it in a mud puddle and it would still likely work?
A lot of troops liked/preferred the M-14, despite the weight of the weapon and .30 cal. ammunition. I stopped carrying my .30/06 bolt action, der rifle because of weight.
I like my Ruger Mini-14. It has a Redfield scope on it and I’m not about to get in a fire fight. I’m 66 years old.
Plus, given the looser tolerances, any third world country could mass produce.
It’s not the weapon, it’s the man. If the man can’t hit, he may as well be throwing rocks.
This morning in Arlington, Thank God for the police officers and the facts that one, the typical idiot liberal (redundant) has no concept of combat (hit the men with guns, first) and two, they generally can’t shoot straight.
Gun guys such as Kim du Toit are your go-to, but I’d prefer a one shot one kill round (7mm) to one that the 20th Century’s ne plus ultra asshole, McNamara, designed to wound.
Your Email (will not be shown):
Please notify me in case of further comments!