I'd say AKM, but I think it's a pity they replaced it with the 74. The M was more powerful, slightly (only slightly) less accurate. M16s are accurate, not very powerful though. No M4 in there!
I like pie.
Poll
Which Cold War rifle is better?
| M16a1/2 | 34% | 34% - 24 | ||||
| AKM and AK 74 (+variants--U, S, etc...) | 41% | 41% - 29 | ||||
| Fn Fal | 24% | 24% - 17 | ||||
| Total: 70 | ||||||
Ok....uhh you could have posted in this thread here
Kthx.
I did a coverage of Cold War assault weapons in that thread and I would say the FN-Fal would have been the best, but it was made to adopt the full powered rifle round of NATO 7.62mm
Kthx.
I did a coverage of Cold War assault weapons in that thread and I would say the FN-Fal would have been the best, but it was made to adopt the full powered rifle round of NATO 7.62mm
"Better" is a really interesting term to use. How about trying to use some criteria?
Accuracy?
Magazine capacity?
Rate of Fire?
Durability?
Cost?
Ubiquity of Use?
Power of Round?
How do you and should we define 'better?'
Accuracy?
Magazine capacity?
Rate of Fire?
Durability?
Cost?
Ubiquity of Use?
Power of Round?
How do you and should we define 'better?'
Why am I not surprised to see you say that, AGAIN!!!pierro wrote:
You are probably right about the AK...but you should keep in mind that a gun itself is useless without someone operating. American soldiers were trained far better then there soviet counterparts during the Cold War...what I'm trying to say is that you should not think of the technical specs as the be all-end all
Better--your choice: your vote.
I like pie.
Ar-10
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7116
They all had there pros and cons and were good for different roles.
Short/Mid range combat in an urban or forested setting: the AKM/AK74 - Actually used in Afghanistan, and the Levant.
Mid range combat in an urban/steppe setting: the M16A1/M16A2 - Actually used in Central America.
Mid/Long range combat in a steppe setting: FN FAL - Actually used in the Falkland Islands, Argentina.
They all seemed to work well in the environments they served in.
Short/Mid range combat in an urban or forested setting: the AKM/AK74 - Actually used in Afghanistan, and the Levant.
Mid range combat in an urban/steppe setting: the M16A1/M16A2 - Actually used in Central America.
Mid/Long range combat in a steppe setting: FN FAL - Actually used in the Falkland Islands, Argentina.
They all seemed to work well in the environments they served in.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2008-04-16 19:22:21)
Well, as long as we are talking about the -A1 and -A2 variants of the M16, and not the original, I will go with the M-16. Granted, the power and range of the -A1 was a bit less than the -A2 (due to the military FINALLY switching back to the rifling the designer originally wanted on the system with the A2), but the -A1 overcame nearly all of the reliability problems the original rifle had.TSI wrote:
I'd say AKM, but I think it's a pity they replaced it with the 74. The M was more powerful, slightly (only slightly) less accurate. M16s are accurate, not very powerful though. No M4 in there!
It is an accurate rifle. It is a reliable rifle. But it was a rifle designed to fight a conscript army. What do I mean by that? The 5.56mm round was designed to wound, and not to kill. A dead soldier is nothing more than a letter home, cover, and perhaps a source of ammunition. A wounded man is a horrible blow to morale (especially if you have to listen to him scream), is a drain of manpower (you need two non-wounded people to care for and move him), and sucks away at resources (you have to use medical supplies on him, transport him to a medical facility, and then care for and house him.
That is one reason that the round is... dated. In some of the low-intensity conflicts today, the wounded are not being transported back to some mythical rear area, they are using themselves as grenade delivery devices. The wounded are being left to the care of those who wounded him, sucking away at the resources of the wrong side. And if they do get away when wounded... they come back to fight again if they are able. So, while it may not be good for today's wars, it was a brilliant idea for a Cold-War weapon.
One point for the FN-FAL is that it is the only weapon to be used on BOTH sides of a conflict during the cold war era. The semi-auto British L1A1 against the fully automatic FAL used by the Argentinans.Superior Mind wrote:
They all had there pros and cons and were good for different roles.
Short/Mid range combat in an urban or forested setting: the AKM/AK74 - Actually used in Afghanistan, and the Levant.
Mid range combat in an urban/steppe setting: the M16A1/M16A2 - Actually used in Central America.
Mid/Long range combat in a steppe setting: FN FAL - Actually used in the Falkland Islands, Argentina.
They all seemed to work well in the environments they served in.
I'm going to have to go with the M16A2. It is fairly light, decently accurate, reliable if cared for, and the combat load for a soldier has about double the ammo vs. a 7.62 rifle.
The FAL came in a close second because of its superior reliability and power. 7.62NATO is not very controlable on full-auto, when fired from a rifle. The US learned that with the M14.
As a general use rifle, I'd take the M16A2. If you get into longer range, open country stuff, I'd want something in 7.62NATO.
The FAL came in a close second because of its superior reliability and power. 7.62NATO is not very controlable on full-auto, when fired from a rifle. The US learned that with the M14.
As a general use rifle, I'd take the M16A2. If you get into longer range, open country stuff, I'd want something in 7.62NATO.
fn fal
AK47. No jams, no mess. Works in sand, mud, you can kick it, toss it about and it'll be fine. No cocking even needed.
ak47 is best rifle in the world, of all time.kylef wrote:
AK47. No jams, no mess. Works in sand, mud, you can kick it, toss it about and it'll be fine. No cocking even needed.
And should be on the list, but would overwhelmingly win.
First, the AKM is the modernized version of the AK-47. Most of the rifles out there people call AK-47s are actually AKMs.IRONCHEF wrote:
ak47 is best rifle in the world, of all time.kylef wrote:
AK47. No jams, no mess. Works in sand, mud, you can kick it, toss it about and it'll be fine. No cocking even needed.
And should be on the list, but would overwhelmingly win.
Just curious, but what does "No cocking even needed" actually mean? It functions like any other automatic rifle in the world. It does need to have it's hammer back to fire. And arguably, since there is no bolt lock for an empty magazine, it needs to be cocked every time you change magazines.
And accuracy is just too poor for me on an AK. Yes, they are durable as all get-out. That is a very desiareable feature since they are made to be used by people who... are not the most trained in the world (I am being polite.)
Depends on the terrain and the situation , but I like the m16
AKs seem to work better in jungle fighting than M16s.
Fuck Israel
Pros for the AKM--Reliable, fires anywhere, anytime, will not jam, does not need as much maintenance, very powerful, both semi and full auto modes, possibility of adding scopes 'n shit (PSO1, 1p29, GP25 and 30, PBS1), and very, very cheap ammo.
Cons--not very accurate at long range, somewhat heavy ammo.
Pros for the M16A1/2--Accurate, flexible (not literally ) and has very effective design, has burst fire mode (A2). Easy to carry+ light ammo.
Cons--not as powerful, not at all reliable in difficult terrain.
Pros for the FAL--Powerful as hell, quite reliable, very accurate on semi mode.
Cons--Wildly inaccurate on full-auto, heavy, small ammo-carrying capacity.
If you're on foot, M16A1.
In a jeep or any other vehicle, really, AKM. The FAL is more like a traditional semi battle rifle.
IMO, of course.
Cons--not very accurate at long range, somewhat heavy ammo.
Pros for the M16A1/2--Accurate, flexible (not literally ) and has very effective design, has burst fire mode (A2). Easy to carry+ light ammo.
Cons--not as powerful, not at all reliable in difficult terrain.
Pros for the FAL--Powerful as hell, quite reliable, very accurate on semi mode.
Cons--Wildly inaccurate on full-auto, heavy, small ammo-carrying capacity.
If you're on foot, M16A1.
In a jeep or any other vehicle, really, AKM. The FAL is more like a traditional semi battle rifle.
IMO, of course.
I like pie.
/thread
Other: BlasTech E-11. Not the company's fault that imperial stormtroopers couldn't hit squat with them.
range > power
i voted m16
i voted m16
Well of COURSE the FN/FAL was used in the Falklands - it was the standard British rifle until it was replaced by the SA80 familySuperior Mind wrote:
They all had there pros and cons and were good for different roles.
Short/Mid range combat in an urban or forested setting: the AKM/AK74 - Actually used in Afghanistan, and the Levant.
Mid range combat in an urban/steppe setting: the M16A1/M16A2 - Actually used in Central America.
Mid/Long range combat in a steppe setting: FN FAL - Actually used in the Falkland Islands, Argentina.
They all seemed to work well in the environments they served in.
M-16, later variants very reliable, accurate and devastating.
That's cause they panicked when Kyle Katarn came running in, Lightsabers ablazing.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Other: BlasTech E-11. Not the company's fault that imperial stormtroopers couldn't hit squat with them.
i'm biased coz i used the brit fn in the 80's,accurate and powerful,good weapon.