I bet at 300 meters I can hit you with my M16 and you cant hit me with your AK. AK's are inaccurate as hell. They can however take a beating and get really dirty and still fire. But whats the point if you can hit shit. As for the rounds I dont know if an AK can use 5.56 rounds it uses 7.62 and thats a big size differences so I would say no but Im not the expert, Ill ask one of the infrantry guys around here.
Yea, I agree AK's are less accurate than the M16. I was told that even with the 1mm difference in the rounds it would still fire in the AK by a Vietnam Veteran with a purple heart.
Proxy, asking about the AK? all I know is that is was designed in 1947 by a man named Mikhal Kalashnikov (spelling..) because ze Germans were cuttin the Russians down with machine guns and all they had was these long ass single shot rifles...
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."- Benjamin Franklin
Well not only is the M16 more accurate, our infantry actually uses the M4 now. Look it up online. It's smaller than the M16, but still as accurate at 300 meters. It has a laser sight(well you can technically put any sight on it that is compatible with the picatinny rail system). There are almost infinite attachments for the front handguards as well. It also features a collapsible buttstock.
The only excuse I've heard for the 5.56 we use is for the purpose of maiming enemies, which we can later interrogate. I think that if we weren't in Iraq that wouldn't be as useful, but it just happens to fit the situation.
I'd say the only thing the AK has going for it is the durability and the larger round size.
...I've just found the picture though...for some reason I thought it'd be bigger than that.
Linear Mode
